This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-35 
entitled 'USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on 
Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered 
Species and Their Habitats' which was released on December 13, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

November 2006: 

USDA Conservation Programs: 

Stakeholder Views on Participation and Coordination to Benefit 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats: 

GAO-07-35: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-35, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Authorization for several conservation programs administered by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expires in 2007, raising 
questions about how these programs may be modified, including how they 
can better support conservation of threatened and endangered species. 
Private landowners receive funding under these programs to implement 
conservation projects directed at several resource concerns, including 
threatened and endangered species. In this report, GAO discusses (1) 
stakeholder views on the incentives and disincentives to participating 
in USDA programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species 
and their suggestions for addressing identified disincentives and (2) 
coordination efforts by USDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) to benefit threatened and endangered species. In performing this 
work, GAO conducted telephone surveys with a nonprobability sample of 
over 150 federal and nonfederal officials and landowners. 

What GAO Found: 

As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified 
receiving payments as the primary incentive for landowners to 
participate in USDA conservation programs for the benefit of threatened 
and endangered species or their habitats. The other most frequently 
identified incentives were program evaluation criteria that give 
projects directly addressing threatened or endangered species greater 
chances of being funded by USDA and landowners’ personal interest in 
conservation. Relatedly, limited funding for programs overall and for 
the amount available to individual landowners was the most frequently 
identified disincentive to participation in USDA’s programs. Fears 
about federal government regulations, paperwork requirements, 
participation and eligibility requirements, and the potential for 
participation to hinder current or future agricultural production were 
the next most frequently identified factors limiting participation. 
Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding, 
improving education and outreach, streamlining paperwork requirements, 
and allowing more flexibility in program participation and eligibility 
requirements as ways to address program disincentives to participating 
in USDA’s programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered 
species. Respondents indicated that educating and reaching out to more 
landowners may address a number of identified disincentives, including 
the fear of government regulations. For some disincentives, however, 
respondents noted that, while addressing them might entice more people 
to participate in the programs, it would not necessarily benefit 
threatened and endangered species. For example, some respondents 
suggested loosening requirements on the size of buffer strips in 
riparian areas, but others noted that doing so might harm certain 
species that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat. 

Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of 
threatened and endangered species occurs at their state and local 
offices, and is largely driven by the personal motivation of the staff 
involved. The types of coordination efforts that occur include sharing 
technical and financial assistance for implementing conservation 
projects, simplifying regulatory compliance procedures, assisting with 
special conservation projects, and participating on agency advisory 
groups. Agency officials noted that successful coordination is largely 
driven by individuals who have a strong commitment to coordinate, good 
interpersonal skills, and a willingness to work with others. Officials 
also recognized, however, that the quality of working relationships and 
the frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies 
considerably by location. To help improve working relationships and 
coordination, USDA and FWS have developed a draft memorandum of 
understanding that includes actions such as sharing information on 
imperiled species and streamlining regulatory processes. While the 
draft memorandum is a positive step toward strengthening coordination, 
it does not clearly articulate how these efforts are to be monitored 
and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are achieved and that 
coordination is sustained. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that USDA and FWS include mechanisms for monitoring and 
reporting on coordination efforts in the final version of the agencies’ 
memorandum of understanding. USDA and the Department of the Interior 
commented that they generally concurred with the findings and 
recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-35]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation 
Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suggestions 
for Addressing Disincentives: 

Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species Occurs 
Primarily at State and Local Levels and Agency Officials Cited Staff 
Motivation as Key to Successful Coordination: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program: 

Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program: 

Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program: 

Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program: 

Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program: 

Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs: 

Abbreviations: 

AFWA: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: 

CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: 

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program: 

CSP: Conservation Security Program: 

EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentives Program: 

FSA: Farm Service Agency: 

FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

GAOU.S. Government Accountability Office: 

GRP: Grassland Reserve Program: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

WHIP: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: 

WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 15, 2006: 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Endangered Species Act protects about 1,300 plant and animal 
species facing extinction or likely to face extinction (referred to as 
endangered and threatened species, respectively). As one of the federal 
agencies responsible for administering and implementing the act, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identifies species that are 
threatened or endangered, and is generally required to identify habitat 
that is critical to these species' survival.[Footnote 1] Many 
threatened and endangered species occur on private lands. Farmers and 
ranchers own or manage a good portion of this land--about one-half of 
the land area of the continental United States--thus, they are among 
the most important stewards of the nation's soil, water, and wildlife 
habitat. Because of this important responsibility, private land--and 
specifically agricultural land--is increasingly recognized as vital to 
conserving the nation's environment and natural resources. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service 
Agency (FSA), both agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), administer a number of programs that provide technical and 
financial assistance to landowners who wish to practice conservation on 
agricultural lands. A number of these conservation programs were 
established in 1985. Every 5 or 6 years since then, Congress has 
expanded the range of conservation topics that can be addressed by 
revising existing programs, adding new ones, and increasing funding. 
For example, conservation goals such as addressing water quality 
problems and protecting wildlife, including threatened and endangered 
species, have been added to some of these programs. Recognizing the 
need for more conservation on private lands as well as attempting to 
reduce a large and growing backlog of applications for many of the 
programs, Congress authorized a significant increase in funding in 2002 
for an array of new and existing conservation programs through fiscal 
year 2007, amounting to an approximately 80 percent increase over prior 
funding levels.[Footnote 2] 

Six of USDA's voluntary conservation programs have received substantial 
funding and have incorporated provisions to address wildlife--which can 
include threatened and endangered species--and their habitats. Of these 
programs, FSA implements the Conservation Reserve Program and NRCS 
implements the Conservation Security Program, Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program. Both agencies share responsibility for implementing 
the Grassland Reserve Program.[Footnote 3] 

* The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established in 1985 and 
obligated $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2005. It aims to conserve and 
improve soil, water, air, and wildlife resources by providing financial 
assistance to landowners who convert land in agricultural production to 
less intensive uses, such as establishing grasses and other vegetative 
covers. 

* The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was established in 2002 and 
obligated $202 million in fiscal year 2005. This program is intended to 
secure existing conservation actions being implemented by agricultural 
producers by providing financial assistance to help them meet and 
sustain a certain level of conservation. 

* The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was established 
in 1996 and obligated $950 million in fiscal year 2005. EQIP funds 
conservation practices on working agricultural land to achieve the 
following national priorities--reduce nonpoint source pollution such as 
nutrient and pesticide runoff, protect and conserve ground water 
resources, reduce air pollutants, reduce soil erosion, and promote 
habitat conservation for species whose populations are declining--which 
can include species that are threatened or endangered. 

* The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) was established in 2002 and 
obligated $71 million in fiscal year 2005. It aims to assist landowners 
in protecting, conserving, and restoring grassland resources on private 
lands through short-and long-term rental agreements and easements. 
Program objectives include maintaining and improving plant and animal 
biodiversity. 

* The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was established in 1990 and 
obligated $267 million in fiscal year 2005. It provides payments to 
landowners to restore farmed or converted wetlands and retain such 
lands as functioning wetlands through a combination of 30-year and 
permanent easements. 

* The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was authorized in 1996 
and obligated $46 million in fiscal year 2005. The purpose of the WHIP 
is to help participants develop habitat for upland wildlife, wetland 
wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fish, and other types of 
wildlife. 

Given the multitude of entities involved in managing the nation's 
natural resources--federal and state agencies, local soil and water 
conservation districts, private landowners, and others--federal 
agencies have been focusing on initiatives to coordinate and promote 
cooperative conservation among these entities.[Footnote 4] 
Specifically, in August 2004, the President signed Executive Order 
13352 to facilitate cooperative conservation in the United States. The 
order addresses actions relating to the use, enhancement, and enjoyment 
of natural resources, and that involve collaborative activity among 
federal, state, local, and tribal governments, private institutions, 
and other nongovernmental entities and individuals. GAO has also 
addressed the issue of collaboration in an October 2005 report that 
recognized that when agencies act together--for example, by pooling 
resources--they can more effectively achieve beneficial outcomes for 
the public than could be produced when they act alone.[Footnote 5] In 
the 2005 report, we identified practices that can help federal agencies 
enhance and sustain collaboration such as establishing mutually 
reinforcing or joint strategies, agreeing on roles and 
responsibilities, developing mechanisms to measure and report results, 
and establishing accountability measures for individuals and agencies. 

Authorization for several significant USDA conservation programs 
expires in 2007, and debates have begun over how these programs may be 
modified, including how they can better support species conservation. 
Recognizing the need to improve progress in recovering threatened and 
endangered species as well as protecting other declining species 
(collectively referred to as "at-risk" species), federal agencies and 
members of Congress are looking for more tools to assist in this 
process. Because USDA's programs are voluntary, understanding the 
motivations of eligible landowners to participate in them for the 
benefit of imperiled species as well as reasons for nonparticipation is 
important to the debate. You asked us to obtain stakeholder views on 
the incentives and disincentives to participating in these programs for 
the benefit of threatened and endangered species as well as 
stakeholders' suggestions for addressing identified disincentives. You 
also asked that we examine how USDA and FWS are coordinating their 
efforts to benefit threatened and endangered species and the factors 
that have contributed to successful collaborative efforts. 

We selected six USDA conservation programs for our review based on 
expenditures, the extent to which they might offer benefits to 
threatened and endangered species, and USDA's confirmation that they 
were appropriate given our objectives. We selected a nonprobability 
sample of 19 states, each of which had high levels of USDA conservation 
program expenditures for the six conservation programs, high or 
moderate numbers of threatened and endangered species relative to other 
states, and represented a variety of geographic locations.[Footnote 6] 
We conducted a telephone survey with a nonprobability sample of 157 FSA 
and NRCS state and local officials, soil and water conservation 
district officials, and landowners--including program participants and 
eligible nonparticipants--within the 19 states to identify the 
incentives, disincentives, and suggestions for addressing disincentives 
to participating in the programs for the benefit of threatened and 
endangered species and their habitats. We also used telephone surveys 
with USDA officials to solicit information about the nature of 
coordination that occurs between USDA and FWS to benefit threatened and 
endangered species and their habitats. Moreover, we surveyed national, 
regional, and field officials with FWS to discuss coordination as well 
as the status of species in the 19 states in our sample. A more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in 
appendix I. We conducted our work between December 2005 and October 
2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Results in Brief: 

As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified 
financial benefits as the primary incentive for landowners to 
participate in the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed for the 
benefit of threatened and endangered species or their habitats. The 
types of financial benefits respondents identified as encouraging 
participation include easement payments that compensate landowners for 
the loss of discretion in how their land may be used into the future 
and cost-share payments that compensate landowners for a certain 
percentage of the costs necessary to implement specific conservation 
practices. The next most frequently identified incentives were program 
evaluation criteria that give projects directly addressing threatened 
or endangered species greater chances of being funded under USDA's 
multi-purpose programs and landowners' personal interest in 
conservation. Regarding evaluation criteria, respondents explained that 
landowners have an incentive to include activities that directly 
address threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species in their 
applications in order to receive extra ranking points, thereby 
increasing the likelihood of their application being accepted and 
funded by a USDA conservation program. For example, program applicants 
in Oklahoma can receive higher ranking points to help qualify for WHIP 
funding if their proposed project addresses certain at-risk species 
such as the threatened Arkansas River shiner or the lesser prairie- 
chicken. Survey respondents also explained that a landowner's personal 
commitment to conservation in general is an important reason for 
participating in these programs. Many landowners explained that they 
were interested in providing habitat that could support wildlife for 
both their own personal enjoyment as well as for the welfare of species 
in general. Some respondents also cited a desire to provide safe 
habitat for threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species 
specifically. 

Relatedly, limited funding was the most frequently identified 
disincentive to participation in the six USDA programs we reviewed. 
Fears about federal government regulations, paperwork requirements, 
participation and eligibility requirements, and the potential for 
participation to hinder current or future agricultural production were 
the other most frequently identified factors limiting participation. 
Respondents frequently reported that, in general, there was not enough 
money available in the programs to provide contracts to all eligible 
landowners, and that the financial incentives offered by the programs 
to individual landowners were often not competitive with other ways of 
making use of agricultural land, such as planting a commodity crop or 
selling to a developer. Respondents also reported that landowners share 
a general reluctance to enroll in these federal conservation programs, 
believing that participation would expose their operations to greater 
scrutiny and potential regulation. For example, some respondents 
expressed a fear of having their operations restricted under the 
Endangered Species Act should they provide habitat for threatened or 
endangered species on their land. Further, respondents indicated that 
the sheer volume of paperwork, as well as the degree of personal 
information required, can overwhelm people and discourage them from 
even applying to the programs. Moreover, respondents cited a number of 
different ways in which participation is restricted because of the 
programs' eligibility requirements, such as limits on a landowner's 
adjusted gross income, even though they may be willing to implement 
projects that would be beneficial to threatened and endangered species. 
And lastly, some survey respondents noted that participation in the 
programs could limit or harm current and future agricultural uses. For 
example, if conservation practices implemented on lands enrolled in the 
programs attract wildlife such as deer or geese that can be destructive 
to enrolled or nearby lands or both, then the landowner's operation 
could be jeopardized. 

Increasing funding, improving education and outreach, streamlining 
paperwork requirements, and allowing more flexibility in program 
participation and eligibility requirements were the most frequently 
suggested solutions to encourage greater participation in USDA 
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered 
species in the six programs we reviewed. Respondents frequently 
suggested increasing the amount of funding in a particular program's 
budget--thus allowing more landowners to have their applications 
accepted and funded--and increasing the amount of the payments awarded 
to individual landowners for participating in programs. Survey 
respondents also indicated that educating and reaching out to more 
landowners may address a number of disincentives identified by 
respondents, including the fear of government regulations. For example, 
educating landowners about the regulatory impacts of providing habitat 
for threatened and endangered species and the regulatory assurances 
that can be provided is one way to assuage the fear of the regulatory 
burden associated with the Endangered Species Act. With respect to 
streamlining paperwork requirements, respondents offered a number of 
suggestions, primarily focused on reducing both the volume of paperwork 
and the time required to complete and process program applications. 
When recommending more flexibility in program participation and 
eligibility requirements, respondents frequently suggested making the 
rules less prescriptive or strict, such as loosening grazing limits 
under CRP or allowing for variable widths of buffers along streams. For 
some disincentives, respondents noted that while addressing them might 
entice more people to participate in the programs, it would not 
necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species. For example, 
while some respondents suggested relaxing requirements on the size of 
buffer strips in riparian areas, others noted that doing so might harm 
certain species that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat. 

Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of 
threatened and endangered species occurs at their field offices at the 
state and local level, and is largely driven by the personal motivation 
of the staff involved. The types of coordination efforts that occur 
include sharing technical and financial assistance, simplifying 
regulatory compliance procedures, assisting with special conservation 
projects, and participating on agency advisory groups. For example, FWS 
biologists assist USDA staff in evaluating applications to WRP by 
providing input on the level of restoration required to benefit 
threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species. Agency officials we 
interviewed most often cited personal motivation of individual staff as 
a leading factor contributing to successful coordination. Officials 
noted that coordination is largely driven by individuals who have a 
strong commitment to coordinate, good interpersonal skills, and a 
willingness to work with others. Agency officials also recognized, 
however, that the quality of working relationships and the frequency of 
coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies considerably by 
location--ranging from extremely good to not good at all. To help work 
more efficiently and effectively with others to benefit threatened, 
endangered, and other at-risk species, NRCS initiated the development 
of a draft memorandum of understanding that, among other things, 
establishes a formal framework for coordination between NRCS, FWS, and 
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). The draft 
memorandum specifies actions to be taken such as sharing information on 
imperiled species, providing greater outreach to landowners about the 
availability of incentive programs, and streamlining regulatory 
processes. While the draft memorandum is an important step toward 
potentially strengthening coordination between the agencies to help 
species, it could be improved by articulating how these efforts are to 
be monitored and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are 
achieved and that coordination is sustained. In a previous report, GAO 
has recognized that such measures are important to enhancing and 
sustaining successful collaborative working relationships between 
agencies.[Footnote 7] Furthermore, the draft memorandum of 
understanding does not include FSA, which manages the largest 
conservation program in USDA. To address these gaps, we are 
recommending that USDA and FWS include monitoring and reporting 
mechanisms in the final version of the memorandum of understanding, and 
add FSA as a party to the memorandum or develop a separate memorandum 
to address coordination with FSA. 

USDA and the Department of the Interior provided comments on a draft of 
this report and generally concurred with our findings and 
recommendations. However, Interior suggested that the recommendations 
be directed only at NRCS since it is the lead agency for the 
memorandum. We did not modify the recommendation as suggested because, 
while NRCS initiated development of the draft memorandum, it is not 
identified as the lead agency in the memorandum; instead, as currently 
drafted, the agencies appear as equal partners. In addition, Interior 
suggested that we allow developing a separate memorandum with FSA as an 
option for addressing coordination between FSA, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA. We 
modified our recommendation to reflect this option. The agencies also 
provided technical clarifications, which we have addressed where 
appropriate. The Department of the Interior's letter is presented in 
appendix II; USDA provided oral comments. 

Background: 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and 
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.[Footnote 
8] Currently, there are about 1,300 threatened and endangered species 
protected under the act and approximately 280 candidate species that 
may eventually warrant future protection under the act.[Footnote 9] The 
Endangered Species Act generally requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior (or the Secretary of Commerce for species under its 
jurisdiction) designate critical habitat for protected species--that 
is, habitat essential to a species' conservation--and to develop 
recovery plans that include actions necessary to bring species to the 
point that they no longer need the act's protection.[Footnote 10] The 
act requires all federal agencies to utilize their authorities, in 
consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior or Commerce, to carry 
out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. 
In addition, where a federal agency action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the act requires the agency to consult with 
the relevant secretary to ensure that the action is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any protected species or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Federal agencies assess the 
potential effects proposed projects may have on protected species and 
may modify projects to avoid harmful effects. We have previously 
reported that these consultations often take longer than the allotted 
timeframes and frustrate federal agency officials and private parties 
involved in this process.[Footnote 11] 

Protecting habitat is an important component to recovering many 
threatened and endangered species, as habitat loss is a leading cause 
of species decline. Habitat destruction and degradation is caused by 
many factors, and sometimes is the result of land conversion (e.g., for 
home and road building or commercial development), and logging 
activities including logging roads and other forest management 
practices. In some situations, agricultural activities such as 
diverting water for irrigation purposes, livestock grazing, and 
applying pesticides and fertilizers, can contribute to habitat 
destruction or degradation. However, the extent to which such 
activities impact species and their habitats is a function of many 
factors, including the nature of the agricultural activity and its 
proximity to the species. Despite its impact on habitat, agricultural 
land is nonetheless widely recognized as vital to the protection of the 
nation's environment and natural resources. As such, USDA operates 
approximately 20 conservation programs designed to address a range of 
environmental concerns--such as soil erosion, surface and ground water 
quality, loss of wildlife habitat and native species, air quality, and 
urban sprawl--by compensating landowners for taking certain lands out 
of agricultural production or employing conservation practices on land 
in production.[Footnote 12] USDA has established regulations governing 
these programs, including eligibility requirements pursuant to 
authorizing statutes. Depending on the program, decisions about the 
projects to fund occur at the national, state, or local levels. 

Table 1 summarizes the six USDA programs included in our 
review.[Footnote 13] While the authorizing statutes for each of these 
programs include measures designed to benefit wildlife and wildlife 
habitat, WHIP is the only program where authorizing legislation 
specifically mentions the development of habitat for threatened and 
endangered species. However, USDA includes protecting habitat for 
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species in the national 
priorities it developed for EQIP and WHIP in 2006.[Footnote 14] 

Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs: 

Program: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); 
Original Authorizing Legislation: Food Security Act of 1985; 
Principal Purpose: To take highly erodible and other qualified lands 
out of agricultural production and to establish vegetative cover on 
such lands to conserve soil; 
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $1.9 billion; 
Payment Type: Annual rental payments; Cost-share payments; 
Contract Period: 10 to 15 year contracts. 

Program: Conservation Security Program (CSP); 
Original Authorizing Legislation: Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002; 
Principal Purpose: To reward farmers and landowners for past 
conservation work, provide technical and financial assistance to help 
develop conservation plans that address specific natural resource 
concerns, and complete additional conservation projects; 
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $202 million; 
Payment Type: Annual payments; Enhancement payments; Cost- share 
payments; 
Contract Period: 5 to 10 year contracts. 

Program: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); 
Original Authorizing Legislation: Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996; 
Principal Purpose: Promote agricultural production and environmental 
quality as compatible national goals, and to optimize environmental 
benefits; 
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $950 million; 
Payment Type: Cost-share payments; Incentive payments; 
Contract Period: 2 to 10 year contracts. 

Program: Grassland Reserve Program (GRP); 
Original Authorizing Legislation: Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002; 
Principal Purpose: To protect virgin grassland and former grassland 
capable of restoration and providing wildlife habitat value; 
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $71 million; 
Payment Type: Easement payments; Annual rental payments; Cost-share 
payments; 
Contract Period: 10 to 30 year contracts; 30-year and permanent 
easements. 

Program: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); 
Original Authorizing Legislation: Food, Agriculture, Conservation and 
Trade Act of 1990; 
Principal Purpose: To restore farmed or converted wetlands and then 
retain such lands as functional wetlands through easement agreements; 
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $267 million; 
Payment Type: Easement payments; Cost-share payments; 
Contract Period: 30-year and permanent easements; 10-year restoration 
agreements. 

Program: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); 
Original Authorizing Legislation: Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996; 
Principal Purpose: To develop fish and wildlife habitat on private land 
such as restoring native vegetation or stabilizing stream banks; 
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $46 million; 
Payment Type: Cost- share payments; 
Contract Period: 5 to 15 year contracts. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA information and laws and regulations. 

[End of table] 

While billions of dollars have been invested in conservation practices 
through these USDA programs over the years, including actions to 
benefit wildlife, clear data on the effects of these programs has been 
relatively limited and many questions remain regarding the conservation 
impacts of these practices. As a result, USDA is currently engaged in 
an effort to quantify the environmental benefits of its conservation 
program practices. This effort, known as the Conservation Effects 
Assessment Project, began in 2003 and has three primary components: an 
assessment of national summary estimates of conservation practice 
benefits and the potential for USDA conservation programs to meet the 
nation's environmental and conservation goals, watershed assessments 
involving basic research on conservation practices in selected 
watersheds to provide a framework for evaluating and improving 
performance of national assessment models, and development of 
bibliographies and literature reviews on conservation programs to 
document what is known and not known about the environmental benefits 
of conservation practices and programs for cropland and fish and 
wildlife. 

Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation 
Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suggestions 
for Addressing Disincentives: 

Survey respondents identified various incentives and disincentives, as 
well as suggestions to address disincentives, to participating in the 
six conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened and 
endangered species. The most frequently identified incentives were 
financial benefits, program evaluation criteria that give projects 
directly addressing threatened and endangered species greater chances 
of being funded, and landowners' personal interest in conservation. 
Financial issues were also identified as a disincentive to 
participating in these programs, with limited funding available to the 
programs overall and for individuals specifically, most frequently 
identified by survey respondents. The other most frequently identified 
factors limiting participation were fears about federal government 
regulations, administrative and paperwork requirements, participation 
and eligibility requirements, and potential limits on current and 
future uses of the enrolled land. The most frequently identified 
suggestions for encouraging greater participation were increasing 
funding, improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining 
paperwork requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in program 
participation and eligibility requirements. Respondents noted that 
while some of these suggestions may serve to increase participation in 
the programs, they may not necessarily benefit threatened and 
endangered species. 

Incentives for Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to Benefit 
Threatened and Endangered Species: 

As might be expected, respondents most frequently identified financial 
benefits as the primary incentive to participating in the six USDA 
conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened and 
endangered species or their habitat. Program evaluation criteria that 
give projects directly addressing threatened, endangered, or other at- 
risk species greater chances of being accepted and landowners' personal 
interest in conservation were the next most frequently identified 
incentives.[Footnote 15] 

Financial Benefits: 

Survey respondents most frequently identified financial benefits as a 
primary incentive for a landowner to participate in the conservation 
programs we reviewed. Several types of financial benefits were 
identified as encouraging participation, including annual rental 
payments, cost-share assistance, enhancement and incentive payments, 
and conservation easement payments. 

* Annual rental payments. Annual rental payments are available to 
producers enrolled in two of the six USDA programs we reviewed--CRP and 
GRP. Annual rental payments provide landowners with a guaranteed source 
of income for their land in exchange for agreeing to participate in 
multi-year contracts in order to provide sustained conservation 
benefits. For example, under CRP, FSA provides annual rental payments 
for 10 to 15 years to participants who convert land in agricultural 
production to less intensive uses such as establishing grasses and 
other vegetative covers to, among other things, control soil erosion 
and enhance wildlife habitat. 

* Cost-share payments. Cost-share assistance is available through each 
of the six programs we reviewed. In this report we use "cost-share 
assistance" to mean a payment by USDA for a certain percentage of the 
cost of implementing an approved conservation practice where the 
participant and--depending on the program--public agencies, nonprofit 
organizations or others contribute to the remaining amount. For 
instance, under EQIP, NRCS may pay up to 75 percent of the costs of 
implementing conservation practices such as manure management 
facilities, that are important to improving and maintaining the health 
of the environment and natural resources.[Footnote 16] While EQIP may 
provide cost-share percentages of as much as 75 percent, each NRCS 
state office may determine its own percentage per conservation 
practice, within statutory limits. For example, an agency official from 
Hawaii explained that EQIP participants may receive the 75 percent 
maximum cost-share allowed in the program for 12 of 51 accepted 
conservation practices that have been determined to provide the 
greatest environmental benefits; these 12 practices include some that 
benefit threatened and endangered species such as fencing out feral 
animals and planting native trees. The remaining 39 practices are 
eligible for a 50 percent cost share. WHIP also provides cost-share 
payments and provides a higher level of cost-share assistance for those 
participants who enter into 15-year agreements and undertake projects 
in areas that NRCS has identified as essential habitat for certain 
species. A respondent from Ohio explained that sharing the cost of 
implementing conservation practices through WHIP has allowed producers 
to convert land that was unsuitable for farming to woodlands, which has 
helped wildlife by reducing land fragmentation in the state. 

* Enhancement and incentive payments. Enhancement and incentive 
payments are additional types of financial benefits available in CRP, 
CSP, and EQIP. In general, enhancement and incentive payments provide a 
participant additional funding--beyond the annual or cost-share 
payments available in these programs--for implementing practices that 
can improve a resource condition beyond that which is required for 
program eligibility. Enhancement payments in some states focus on 
benefiting targeted species, as determined by USDA state officials or 
local stakeholders. For example, a NRCS local office in New Mexico-- 
with support from a local EQIP working group and approval by the NRCS 
state conservationist--offers an annual incentive payment for 
landowners to defer grazing on enrolled lands that benefit the lesser 
prairie-chicken, a candidate species for listing under the Endangered 
Species Act. Similarly, according to an official in Colorado, 
enhancement payments are geared toward landowners whose projects 
benefit state-selected species of concern. 

* Easement payments. Landowners can also receive payments by entering 
into easement agreements with USDA; easement payments can be made to 
participants in GRP and WRP. An easement under these programs 
essentially results in the landowner agreeing to how the enrolled land 
will be managed under the program for the length of the agreement in 
return for an easement payment.[Footnote 17] Compared to the temporary 
duration of the other financial incentives offered by USDA programs, 
what is most distinctive about easements is the long-term or permanent 
character of the restriction on future development of enrolled land. 
Two easement options are available under GRP and WRP--30 years or 
permanent. According to one respondent, the incentive to pursuing an 
easement is the long-term certainty that they will be adequately 
compensated for making habitat improvements. Under WRP, a participant 
agreeing to a permanent easement may also receive a higher cost-share 
percentage. Specifically, these participants may receive up to 100 
percent of the cost needed to implement projects to enhance or restore 
wetlands. For these landowners, this combined financial incentive 
available under WRP--the permanent easement payment and higher than 
typical cost-share payments--can be helpful for giving them a return on 
land that is marginally productive. For example, according to an agency 
official, participating in WRP in Washington allows landowners to be 
compensated for creating wetlands to benefit salmon species, including 
some that are threatened and endangered, on agricultural lands where 
production is limited by high water tables and flooding. 

Program Criteria That Give Greater Consideration to Projects that 
Directly Address Threatened and Endangered Species: 

Another most frequently identified incentive for landowner 
participation for the benefit of threatened and endangered species or 
their habitat--in all but one of the six USDA conservation programs we 
reviewed, CSP--was program evaluation criteria that give projects 
directly addressing threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species 
greater chances of being approved.[Footnote 18] These criteria are one 
of several factors used to evaluate and rank applications for program 
participation and funding. Respondents explained that there is an 
incentive to include activities that directly address threatened, 
endangered, or other at-risk species in applicants' projects if these 
activities receive extra ranking points, thereby increasing their 
likelihood of being accepted and funded by a USDA conservation program. 

Including criteria for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk 
species in the ranking process is done primarily by giving more points 
to projects that address specific species, geographic areas, or habitat 
types. For example, according to an Oklahoma agency official, the state-
level WHIP application ranking process in Oklahoma includes criteria 
that give more points to projects that develop or restore habitat for 
the threatened Arkansas River shiner and the lesser prairie-chicken (a 
candidate species). In Colorado, between 5 and 25 percent of EQIP 
funds, per a specific watershed area, are spent for projects that 
address wildlife or enhance riparian and wetland habitat. Such funding 
has been used to target a state species of concern, the sage grouse, 
and federally-listed threatened and endangered species such as the 
Preble's meadow jumping mouse. In Montana, in addition to providing 
greater ranking points to WHIP projects that directly benefit 
threatened and endangered species, NRCS offers EQIP special initiatives 
that are designed to address natural resource concerns that may not be 
addressed through traditional EQIP practices or that are determined to 
be such a critical need that a separate funding opportunity is 
warranted. Approximately 20 percent of Montana's EQIP funding is 
directed toward these special initiatives, some of which directly 
target creating benefits for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk 
species, such as the gray wolf and grizzly bear.[Footnote 19] Eligible 
applicants who reside in areas that are the focus of the special 
initiatives, and who are willing to implement specific practices, are 
likely to receive funding. 

Landowners' Personal Interest in Conservation: 

A landowner's personal interest in conservation was also among the most 
frequently identified incentives to participate in USDA conservation 
programs for each of the six programs we reviewed. Many respondents 
explained that landowners were interested in providing habitat that 
could support wildlife for both their own personal enjoyment as well as 
for the general welfare of species, while others articulated a desire 
to provide safe habitat for threatened and endangered species 
specifically. This incentive was frequently identified for programs 
that are specifically geared toward benefiting wildlife, such as WRP 
and WHIP. Many respondents explained that, for people who are concerned 
about wildlife, the goals for these two programs themselves were the 
incentive to participate. Respondents explained that individuals have 
their own personal or ethical motivations to establish habitat and that 
according to one respondent, some landowners would do it regardless of 
program funding. However, as noted by another respondent, with the 
financial support offered by these programs, the landowner has more 
resources with which to better establish such habitat and benefit 
species. Many respondents also identified benefiting wildlife as an 
important incentive for participating in CRP. For example, one 
respondent from Georgia explained that while receiving financial 
assistance was the most important incentive for participating in CRP, 
the indirect benefit of helping to re-establish an ecosystem that 
provides a safe environment for certain species was an incentive. 

Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to Benefit 
Threatened and Endangered Species: 

Survey respondents most frequently identified limited funding as a 
primary disincentive to participating for the benefit of threatened and 
endangered species or their habitat in the six USDA conservation 
programs we reviewed. Fears about federal government regulations, 
administrative and paperwork requirements, participation and 
eligibility requirements, and the potential for current or future 
agricultural uses to be harmed or restricted were the other most 
frequently identified factors limiting participation.[Footnote 20] 

Limited Funding for Programs and Participants: 

Survey respondents identified limited funding and funding uncertainty 
for the programs in general, and for the individual payments offered to 
program participants specifically, most frequently as disincentives for 
participating in four of the six programs reviewed--CRP, EQIP, GRP, and 
WHIP. Respondents frequently stated that there was not enough funding 
available for the programs to accept all eligible applications. Several 
respondents explained that a lack of program funding can deter 
applicants, particularly when those with credible, highly-ranked 
applications do not receive funding. According to one respondent, 
continuous rejection may result in some landowners choosing to sell 
their property. The choice to sell portions of property can help make 
retaining land economically feasible, rather than repeatedly attempting 
to apply for conservation program funds. Uncertainty about program 
funding levels can also discourage participation. For example, a 
respondent from Florida said that it is hard for landowners to plan for 
conservation if program funding levels are not known from year to year, 
or if there is uncertainty about whether the program and its objectives 
will change. 

In addition to limited funding in general, many respondents identified 
limited or insufficient financial payments to program participants as a 
disincentive. According to many respondents, landowners may be hesitant 
to participate in a conservation program because the cost share 
provided by the programs is insufficient. For example, one respondent 
said that funding amounts available for certain conservation practices 
do not cover the costs associated with implementing the conservation 
practices, particularly for EQIP and WHIP. Respondents also reported 
that the financial benefits to implement conservation practices were 
often not competitive with the financial gain a landowner could 
realize, for example, by planting a commodity crop or selling their 
land to a developer. One respondent from Washington said that the 
profit margins for farmers are so low that having to cover a 50-percent 
share of a project's costs is too high, especially if there are no 
other economic benefits from implementing the conservation practice. 
Others stated that even a 75-percent cost share may not be enough for 
some landowners. 

Fears About Government Regulations: 

Fears about government regulations was among the most frequently cited 
factors limiting participation in USDA conservation programs for all 
six of the programs we reviewed.[Footnote 21] Respondents indicated 
that landowners fear that participating in a conservation program would 
expose their operations to greater scrutiny, including potential 
restrictions under the Endangered Species Act, should they adopt 
conservation measures that result in creating habitat for a threatened 
or endangered species on their land. For example, a respondent from 
Florida noted that landowners considering enrolling in a program may be 
deterred by the prospect of surveys and assessments for threatened and 
endangered species on their land. Similarly, landowners are hesitant to 
take actions that would help the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog, 
which has adopted livestock watering tanks as a safe habitat because of 
loss of native habitat, because of concern about potential regulatory 
impacts under the Endangered Species Act. According to one respondent 
in Minnesota, some farmers in the state do not take conservation 
actions under USDA programs that may benefit the prairie fringed 
orchid--a threatened species--fearing that enrolled lands supporting 
the orchid may cause the species to grow in adjacent, non-enrolled 
lands.[Footnote 22] Respondents also explained that some landowners are 
generally averse to any government intervention and seek to avoid 
governmental monitoring, even if they could receive financial or 
technical assistance in return. 

Administrative and Paperwork Requirements: 

Burdensome administrative and paperwork requirements was also among the 
most frequently mentioned factors limiting participation in all six of 
the programs we reviewed. According to several respondents, the length 
of time needed to go through the entire process of receiving funds from 
these conservation programs is long and acts as a disincentive to 
participating. This process generally includes applying to the program, 
adopting a conservation practice, and receiving payment. For example, 
one respondent from Ohio said that it can take almost a year from 
submitting an application to starting work on the ground. Respondents 
explained that the timing of the application process is also a concern 
for landowners. For example, a respondent from Arkansas noted that the 
EQIP application process starts in the spring when farmers are often 
busy, typically preparing their lands for planting. If the process 
started in the winter, it would allow farmers more time to devote to 
the application process. 

Respondents also indicated that the sheer volume of paperwork, as well 
as the degree of personal information required to participate, can 
overwhelm people and discourage them from applying for the programs. 
Several respondents indicated that when landowners examine a 
conservation program's lengthy contract and its stipulations, they find 
the process intimidating and do not apply. In addition, some 
respondents said that they feel that the relatively small amount of 
money available in the programs is not enough to justify the large 
amount of paperwork required to apply. One respondent said that filling 
out all of the forms is particularly burdensome for landowners with 
smaller farms, and that such landowners cannot afford to spend time 
tracking down the information for the forms when they instead need to 
be working on their land. Furthermore, CSP encourages participants to 
perform self-certification and develop conservation plans. These 
additional recordkeeping responsibilities can deter potential 
participants. Some respondents stated that landowners may not have 
adequate records to prove that they meet the extensive eligibility 
requirements for a program. Furthermore, some respondents told us that 
some potential applicants avoid participating because of application 
requirements to divulge personal information, such as their adjusted 
gross income, work history, and backgrounds. 

Finally, according to some survey respondents, obtaining necessary 
permits to implement conservation practices can slow down an already 
long process.[Footnote 23] For instance, one respondent from Washington 
told us that the permitting process for implementing in-stream projects 
for threatened and endangered fish is lengthy and inefficient, and may 
require the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including USDA, FWS, 
the National Marine Fisheries Service, state departments of fish and 
wildlife and ecology, as well as county and local permitting agencies. 
While the issuance and approval of the permits are not the 
responsibility of USDA, from the applicant's perspective, these permits 
add to the burdensome nature of applying for USDA funds. 

Participation and Eligibility Requirements: 

Also among the most frequently cited disincentives to participating in 
all of the six programs was that some of the programs' participation 
requirements were too restrictive and inflexible. A number of 
respondents told us that program requirements about what can and cannot 
be performed in a conservation project are too rigid, and often do not 
include the very components that are necessary for achieving the 
intended conservation benefit. For example, limitations on grazing 
under CRP and GRP were cited by numerous respondents as inflexible. 
While grazing restrictions were established, in part, to improve ground 
cover for species such as ground-nesting birds like the lesser prairie- 
chicken, some respondents contend that the restrictions may actually 
provide less benefit to some species. An agency official from Oregon 
explained that the inability to disturb grass stands under 10-year CRP 
contracts could be counter-productive, because while the undisturbed 
grass is viable and beneficial for wildlife in the first 5 to 6 years, 
it will then begin to die out, and could present a fire hazard for the 
landowner; it is possible that a fire could also result in the 
destruction of important habitat.[Footnote 24] This respondent further 
explained that while ground-nesting species may use the undisturbed 
grass for protection, allowing grass to grow too tall deters insects 
and ungulates from using the area and breaking up the sod. Breaking up 
the sod is critical to maintain healthy grasses. 

Respondents also told us that landowner eligibility requirements can 
serve to restrict participation by landowners interested in benefiting 
threatened and endangered species. For instance, the adjusted gross 
income requirement for participation renders a number of landowners 
ineligible, and according to some respondents, these ineligible 
landowners might have applied if permitted.[Footnote 25] Respondents 
noted that the income restriction was a particular problem in areas 
such as Hawaii, where property income is relatively high, but where 
many threatened and endangered species could benefit from conservation 
actions. Several respondents from Hawaii explained that the income 
requirement excludes potential participants who own a majority of the 
threatened and endangered species habitat on private property relative 
to the rest of Hawaii. One respondent told us that he was willing to 
consider establishing conservation practices that would help protect an 
endangered plant and other species, but he is ineligible to receive 
financial assistance to do so because of the adjusted gross income 
limit. 

Similarly, respondents expressed concern about CSP's eligibility 
requirements that limit participation to selected watersheds. According 
to one respondent, the number of new watersheds expected to be funded 
through CSP for fiscal year 2006 was 110, but the number actually 
funded was 60. This reduction was a result of a lack of available 
funding. Therefore, some landowners who might be interested in 
implementing CSP conservation practices may not reside in a watershed 
eligible for funding. Even when in an eligible watershed, a respondent 
from Washington said that some landowners may still not be eligible to 
receive funds because the program uses an inappropriate soil 
conditioning index criteria to select projects. The criteria used are 
based on Midwest soil types rather than desert soils such as those 
found in Washington and other states in the West.[Footnote 26] A 
respondent in Illinois noted that CSP also prevents farmers that rent 
lands for production for short periods of time from participating. The 
program requires farmers to control enrolled land for the life of the 
contract. 

Potential for Participation to Hinder Current or Future Agricultural 
Production: 

The potential for participation in USDA programs to limit current or 
future agricultural production was among the most frequently cited 
disincentives for three of the six programs we reviewed--CRP, EQIP, and 
WRP. For example, some respondents said that promoting wildlife may 
result in crop damage, as some animals such as deer or geese may eat 
crops. Because of this crop damage, some respondents may view such 
wildlife as pests. Furthermore, a respondent from Pennsylvania 
described how taking lands out of production can result in noxious 
weeds invading the area. These weeds are difficult to eradicate and can 
also spread to and infest other productive lands. 

Suggestions for Addressing Disincentives to Participating in Programs 
to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species: 

Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding, 
improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining paperwork 
requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in program participation 
and eligibility requirements to address disincentives and encourage 
greater participation in the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed 
for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats.[Footnote 27] Respondents, however, also noted that while some 
of these suggestions might increase participation in the programs, they 
would not necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species. 

Increasing Funding for Programs and Landowners: 

Increasing funding--for both programs in general and the amounts paid 
to individual landowners specifically--was the most frequently 
mentioned suggestion for encouraging participation in USDA's 
conservation programs for four of the programs we reviewed--CRP, EQIP, 
GRP, and WRP; it was the second most frequently identified suggestion 
for CSP and WHIP. A majority of respondents agreed that increasing the 
overall investment in the programs could greatly or very greatly help 
threatened and endangered species. For example, increasing GRP's budget 
was mentioned by some respondents as a way to include more applicants 
in the program, thereby increasing the number of acres enrolled and 
thus increasing benefits to species that depend on grassland 
ecosystems. One USDA official explained that if he could pick one 
program to put additional money into, it would be GRP, in part because 
of its untapped potential. Similarly, a USDA official in Iowa suggested 
the need to increase CSP's overall budget because the program generally 
only has enough money to fund the highest-ranking applicants and, in 
Iowa, these tend not to be those landowners who include practices to 
benefit threatened and endangered species in their applications. 
According to this official, most of the highest ranking applications 
are for projects proposed on cropped farmlands, where there is less 
opportunity to benefit threatened or endangered species. Likewise, 
respondents suggested increasing WHIP's budget to allow more high 
quality applications to receive funding, particularly given that the 
program's primary purpose is to benefit wildlife. 

Respondents also frequently recommended increasing the amount of 
payments offered to individual program participants. For CRP, 
respondents specifically suggested increasing the rates of annual 
rental payments associated with the program since this, in part, would 
help make setting land aside competitive with other agricultural uses 
of the land. Further, one USDA official in Massachusetts suggested 
tailoring the amount of rental payments to specific areas within states 
and counties in order to better match the payments with local land 
values. Under EQIP, respondents frequently suggested increasing the 
cost-share percentage available for projects. Respondents explained 
that raising the cost-share amount borne by the federal government 
could help encourage landowners to implement projects that benefit 
threatened and endangered species since those typically do not provide 
long-term financial returns. Some respondents recommended putting 
additional funding into practices that provide direct benefits to 
threatened and endangered species, such as providing a greater cost- 
share percentage under EQIP for certain species-friendly practices--as 
is done, for example, in Hawaii--or raising the rental rate for CRP for 
those acres that will directly benefit imperiled species. A similar 
suggestion, made by a respondent in Minnesota, was to provide more 
funding under GRP to those landowners whose land includes habitat that 
is essential for threatened and endangered species. Some of the FWS 
officials we interviewed suggested that USDA could target its funding 
allocations within programs based on geographic areas determined to be 
of high priority for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species. 
As one soil and water conservation district official in Iowa explained, 
people would look into helping threatened and endangered species more 
if they knew they could get money for doing so. 

Improving Education and Outreach to Landowners: 

Respondents identified improving education and outreach to landowners 
as a way to encourage greater participation for the benefit of 
threatened and endangered species most frequently for CSP and WHIP; it 
was the second most frequently mentioned solution for the other four 
programs we reviewed. Respondents recommended actions including 
building trust and developing personal relationships between landowners 
and agency staff, doing more to advertise the programs, and focusing 
education on the benefits of helping threatened and endangered species 
and other wildlife and the specifics on how to accomplish this. One 
soil and water conservation district official suggested targeting 
outreach efforts to younger farmers. Some USDA officials we interviewed 
in Texas noted that, in some areas, agricultural land is starting to 
change hands to younger farmers and, in particular, to owners who do 
not depend on agricultural production for income. These officials said 
that some of these new landowners are more oriented to using their land 
for recreational purposes and are more amenable to taking steps to help 
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species. 

Respondents indicated that improving education and conducting more 
outreach to landowners could address a number of different 
disincentives. First, educating landowners about the regulatory 
consequences of providing habitat for threatened and endangered species 
is one way to assuage fears about regulation under the Endangered 
Species Act. One soil and water conservation district official in 
Colorado said he reassures people that providing habitat "is a good 
thing" and that they will not be punished for it; a USDA official in 
Ohio said the majority of landowners with fears about the act are 
reassured after learning more about how the law is implemented. A USDA 
official in Oklahoma explained that NRCS needs to educate landowners so 
they see at-risk species, like black-tailed prairie dogs, not just as 
pests, but instead as opportunities for them to benefit from 
participating in WHIP. Second, one respondent explained that educating 
people during the application process as to their chances of receiving 
funding for a competitive program like EQIP can help adjust their 
expectations and reduce the frustration of not receiving funding. 
Third, taking the time to educate people about the necessities of some 
of the paperwork requirements may help them better understand, even 
though they may still dislike, the bureaucratic process, according to 
some respondents. For example, a soil and water conservation district 
official in Oregon suggested the need to explain that paperwork 
requirements related to threatened and endangered species are often 
part of a system of checks and balances that are in place for a reason. 
Finally, one USDA official explained that telling people the reasons 
why certain conservation practices were developed under WHIP may help 
overcome some landowners' perception that the strict requirements 
regarding how practices are to be installed are a disincentive to 
participating. 

Streamlining Paperwork Requirements: 

Streamlining the amount of paperwork associated with the programs was 
one of the most frequently suggested ways of encouraging greater 
landowner participation in CSP, EQIP and WRP. Respondents' suggestions 
focused on the need to simplify the application and permitting 
processes. Respondents suggested simplifying the application process by 
reducing both the volume of paperwork and the processing time for each 
application. Specifically, a landowner in Missouri suggested creating 
only one set of paperwork to apply for multiple programs, while a soil 
and water conservation district official in Washington proposed linking 
forms so information needs to be entered only once and can be carried 
forward automatically where needed.[Footnote 28] Respondents also 
suggested making the permitting process less time consuming by, for 
example, allowing Endangered Species Act consultations and other 
environmental assessments to be performed jointly for more than one 
project, eliminating the need to do separate assessments for each 
individual project. Reducing the programs' paperwork requirements, 
according to a USDA official in California, would allow NRCS staff to 
spend more time in the field with landowners instead of processing 
paperwork in the office. 

Allowing Greater Flexibility in Participation and Eligibility 
Requirements: 

More flexibility in participation and eligibility requirements was also 
among the most frequently mentioned suggestions for encouraging 
participation in USDA conservation programs under CRP, EQIP, and WRP. 
For CRP and WRP specifically, respondents frequently mentioned making 
the programs' rules governing participation less prescriptive or 
strict. Respondents indicated that these programs contain restrictions 
on the amount of agricultural production that can take place on 
enrolled lands, and that allowing more production could entice 
landowners to participate, while not significantly detracting from the 
conservation purposes of the programs. For example, a USDA official in 
Montana suggested that allowing for some limited grazing in CRP might 
help persuade landowners who otherwise were turned off by the 10-year 
minimum length of the required contract. In addition, respondents 
suggested allowing variable widths for buffers along streams under CRP 
rather than setting a standard width, and allowing a producer to 
implement additional management practices beyond what is allowed in 
their program contract. For example, according to one USDA official, 
the enhancement program under CRP in Pennsylvania only allows mowing to 
control weeds during the first three years of a 10-year contract, and 
that allowing additional mowing each year before or after the mating 
season for ground-nesting birds would better help these 
species.[Footnote 29] 

For EQIP, respondents frequently suggested allowing greater flexibility 
in eligibility requirements for potential participants. Respondents 
recommended allowing landowners who are not agricultural producers-- 
such as hobby farmers or people living on large parcels of land--to 
qualify for participation in the program; such landowners can receive 
funds under WHIP. As one soil and water conservation district official 
explained, it should not matter who owns the land, if the goal is to 
install projects that benefit threatened and endangered species. Other 
suggestions included allowing multiple landowners to apply together on 
one EQIP application, thereby ensuring coordinated management of 
adjacent lands--an action that would ultimately protect the threatened 
and endangered species in the area--and creating an exemption to the 
adjusted gross income requirement for landowners in Hawaii. This 
potential exemption was suggested because there are so many lands in 
the state with valuable habitat that are part of large ranches that do 
not meet the income eligibility requirement. According to one 
respondent in Hawaii, allowing the large landowners on Maui to 
participate in USDA conservation programs, for example, would greatly 
benefit threatened and endangered species. He said that the two largest 
private landowners alone could help protect several thousand acres of 
habitat for these species as their land is adjacent to already- 
protected habitat, including Haleakala National Park. 

Implementing Suggestions Has Potential Limitations for Threatened and 
Endangered Species: 

Some respondents noted that while implementing the suggestions might 
entice more people to participate in the programs and address 
disincentives that were identified, doing so would not necessarily 
benefit threatened and endangered species in all cases. For example, 
according to some respondents, allowing for more management or variable 
buffer widths under CRP may increase participation in that program 
because it would address landowner resistance to the current rules; 
however, according to other respondents, such an action may ultimately 
be to the detriment of any threatened, endangered, or other at-risk 
species that depend on certain conditions in these areas. Similarly, a 
few respondents noted that reducing the paperwork requirements for CSP 
may result in the loss of exactly the kind of information NRCS needs to 
document good conservation--including benefits to threatened and 
endangered species--for participation in the program. While only 5 of 
the 18 FWS officials we interviewed felt that USDA programs in their 
current forms provide great to very great benefits to threatened and 
endangered species, many stated that the programs have a lot of 
potential to benefit these species. FWS officials offered some specific 
suggestions to orient USDA's programs more toward protecting threatened 
and endangered species. Some FWS officials suggested committing a 
certain percentage of programs' budgets to projects benefiting these 
species, while others recommended targeting USDA spending to specific 
geographic areas that have high priority species and habitat 
needs.[Footnote 30] 

Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species Occurs 
Primarily at State and Local Levels and Agency Officials Cited Staff 
Motivation as Key to Successful Coordination: 

USDA and FWS officials stated that coordination of their conservation 
efforts to benefit threatened and endangered species most often occurs 
at their field offices at the state and local level and cited personal 
motivation as a key factor in successful collaborative efforts. 
However, agency officials acknowledged that the quality of working 
relationships and the frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS 
staff varies by location. To improve working relationships and 
coordination, USDA initiated work on a memorandum of understanding 
that, among other things, establishes a formal framework for 
coordination. Although the draft memorandum is a positive step in 
improving coordination, it currently lacks mechanisms to monitor and 
report on implementation efforts to help ensure that coordination 
occurs and is sustained. It also does not include FSA, even though the 
agency runs the conservation program in USDA that can affect the most 
agricultural land--the Conservation Reserve Program. 

Agency Survey Respondents and Other USDA and FWS Officials Stated That 
Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species Occurs 
Primarily at Their Field Offices at the State and Local Level: 

USDA and FWS officials told us that while coordination between agencies 
occurs at all levels--headquarters, regional, state, and local--the 
majority of the work takes place at their field offices at the state 
and local level in the day-to-day implementation of their programs. 
Coordination generally involves FWS field office officials providing 
USDA staff in state and local offices with information about species 
and habitat needs relevant to conservation program decisions, while 
NRCS officials, who are often soil scientists and civil engineers, 
provide surveying and engineering expertise to FWS staff on the design 
and construction of specific conservation projects. Some NRCS officials 
told us that they routinely include FWS biologists in the onsite 
evaluations they conduct of WRP applications. For example, in Oklahoma, 
a FWS biologist serves on NRCS's wetland review team with NRCS and 
state agency officials, making site visits and ranking 
applications.[Footnote 31] FWS biologists assist USDA staff with 
ranking the biological value of WRP applications and, for those 
applications that are approved, commenting on the types of vegetation 
and level of restoration that should be implemented to benefit at-risk 
species. 

In some cases, USDA and FWS may also jointly fund projects, although 
there are some restrictions on how funds from different federal 
programs may be combined.[Footnote 32] Officials told us that working 
together to secure funds from multiple programs across agencies can be 
particularly helpful to landowners who otherwise would not have been 
able to undertake a conservation project if they received funds from 
just one program. For example, NRCS and FWS jointly funded a riparian 
restoration project to improve habitat for the endangered shiner minnow 
in Calhoun County, Iowa. NRCS provided funds through WHIP for 
excavation work along the stream bank, as well as the purchasing of 
stone for stream bank stabilization. FWS funds covered all structural 
costs associated with the project, including the installation of stone 
barriers within the stream. The joint financial contributions by both 
agencies helped to significantly lower the total project cost to the 
landowner. 

The agencies have also worked together to help streamline the 
consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Under the act 
and its implementing regulations, NRCS must consult with FWS on each 
conservation project it funds that may affect a threatened or 
endangered species to ensure the projects are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species or adversely modify designated 
critical habitat. We have previously reported that agency officials and 
private entities that must go through this process complain that it is 
time consuming and frustrating; some agency officials reiterated those 
concerns during this review. To address such concerns, FWS works with 
agencies to develop programmatic consultations that set forth 
parameters or guidelines for how specific actions might be conducted in 
order to avoid adverse effects to species and their habitats. If such 
guidance is followed, the subsequent consultation should presumably go 
more quickly. In Florida, for example, the FWS field office developed a 
programmatic consultation for conservation actions that NRCS commonly 
uses, such as controlled burning and mowing, activities that might harm 
the threatened eastern indigo snake. In developing the programmatic 
consultation, FWS and NRCS reached agreement on the best management 
practices to be used when implementing the conservation actions in 
order to avoid adversely harming the snake or its habitat. According to 
NRCS and FWS officials, programmatic consultations can dramatically 
reduce the amount of time spent consulting with FWS on projects. 

USDA and FWS also collaborate on broader conservation projects 
involving other government agencies and nongovernmental organizations. 
These collaborations include: 

* State and local agency initiatives. USDA and FWS work together with 
state and local agencies on conservation initiatives. For example, in 
an effort to address the loss of wetlands, officials in Kane County, 
Illinois, requested assistance from NRCS and FWS. Based on maps of 
groundwater recharge areas and extensive soil and topographic surveys 
from NRCS, together with information about the plant and animal 
communities relying on the wetlands in the county from FWS, the 
agencies assisted county officials in identifying wetlands that were in 
most need of protection.[Footnote 33] Their actions, according to a 
NRCS official, also contributed to improving water quality, educating 
the local public on the importance of protecting wetlands, and helping 
the county's forestry division identify potential lands for public 
ownership. 

* NRCS State Technical Committees. NRCS established these committees in 
every state to assist in making technical recommendations on issues 
relating to the implementation of natural resource conservation 
activities and programs. Committee members include representatives from 
NRCS, FSA, FWS, and other federal agencies; state agriculture and 
wildlife agencies; nongovernmental organizations; and private 
landowners.[Footnote 34] Recommendations are made by the committee for 
consideration by the implementing USDA program agency. Survey 
respondents and other officials told us that committee work and 
discussions among members can identify opportunities to coordinate on 
specific projects to benefit threatened and endangered species. For 
example, discussions among committee members in Ohio led to FWS working 
on a CRP project--and making recommendations to modify the 
implementation of the project--that improved the possibility of 
providing habitat for the threatened copperbelly water snake. FWS and 
FSA officials worked together with the landowners to incorporate the 
modifications into the project. 

* Habitat Joint Ventures. Habitat joint ventures were established in 
the late 1980s to help implement the North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan. Their purpose is to restore, protect, and enhance 
waterfowl habitat on a regional scale throughout North America; there 
are 11 habitat joint ventures in the United States. Each joint venture 
is comprised of numerous public and private entities. A key aspect of 
these joint ventures is to identify funding sources for needed 
conservation and to prioritize projects to receive that funding. USDA 
and FWS are members on these joint ventures and provide technical and 
financial assistance to implement projects to restore and enhance 
habitat and protect waterfowl. While the primary purpose of the joint 
ventures is waterfowl, habitat important for waterfowl is also often 
important for threatened and endangered species. 

At the national level, USDA and FWS coordinate on developing program 
regulations, policy, and training. For example, the agencies have 
recently begun joint training sessions on the consultation process 
required by the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 35] The training is 
ultimately expected to be offered to local USDA staff in an effort to 
help them better understand and navigate the consultation process. 
Officials noted that such sessions also help FWS staff to better 
understand USDA's programs and become more familiar with USDA staff. 
Additionally, the agencies have worked together at the national level 
to develop the criteria used in evaluating and ranking proposed CRP 
projects. These projects are assessed, among other things, on their 
expected environmental benefits to soil resources, water quality, and 
wildlife habitat. Officials in headquarters offices have also worked 
together in developing conservation practices and standards for USDA 
and FWS conservation programs. 

While survey respondents provided many examples of successful 
coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of threatened, 
endangered, and other at-risk species, they also indicated that the 
level of coordination that occurs at the local office level varies 
considerably--ranging from extremely good to not good at all. We also 
found this to be the case during interviews with agency officials. For 
example, several USDA officials stated that they work closely with FWS 
in implementing conservation programs, such as WRP and CRP, and often 
share information concerning threatened and endangered species. 
However, other officials we interviewed said that coordination between 
USDA and FWS was limited or generally poor and only occurs in limited 
situations, such as when construction is involved on a project. 
Similarly, several USDA officials stated that they coordinate with FWS 
principally on state conservation plans or through e-mail when 
necessary. Still, some agency officials we interviewed noted that 
despite past problems between USDA and FWS, coordination is improving. 

Survey Respondents and Other Agency Officials Cited Staff Motivation as 
a Leading Factor in Successful Coordination: 

USDA survey respondents and FWS officials we interviewed most often 
stated that the personal motivation of staff was a leading factor in 
successful collaboration between USDA and FWS. Specifically, officials 
noted that individuals who possessed a strong commitment to coordinate, 
had good interpersonal skills, and demonstrated a willingness to work 
with others were often the driving force behind successful 
collaborative efforts. For example, one USDA survey respondent reported 
that it was the personal attitude of the FWS official working with USDA 
that made the difference in helping to establish habitat for the 
threatened copperbelly water snake in Ohio. His positive attitude in 
working with USDA staff, commitment in attending meetings, and 
willingness to actively participate all contributed significantly to 
the success of their collaboration. Similarly, a FWS respondent noted 
that the people skills and collaborative attitude of NRCS and FWS staff 
were linchpins in completing a watershed project on the upper Little 
Red River in Arkansas, a project that improved habitat for a listed 
species of mussel and a candidate species of fish. 

Commonly-shared goals and management support and direction for 
collaboration were other important factors that contribute to 
successful collaboration highlighted in our survey and in interviews 
with agency officials. For example, FWS officials reported that 
successful coordination in Montana has resulted largely from direction 
provided by the NRCS state conservationist who put an emphasis on 
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species for EQIP and WHIP and 
makes funding decisions for these programs at the state level (as 
opposed to the county level as done in other states). Trust was another 
important factor cited. Unfortunately, trust between agencies is not 
something that can be dictated from management; it takes time to 
develop. Learning about other agencies' programs and becoming familiar 
with counterparts at other agencies are important components to this 
process. In some cases, this process has been expedited by having staff 
from one agency collocated at another agency's offices. For example, in 
Colorado, two FWS officials are located at NRCS offices in the state to 
help address threatened and endangered species and other wildlife 
issues. Similarly, in Texas, an official from the Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department is collocated with the NRCS state office. According 
to Texas officials, this close contact has been very beneficial to 
promoting a better understanding of each agency's respective programs 
and how they can work together. 

USDA and FWS Are Working to Improve Coordination Efforts through a 
Memorandum of Understanding for At-Risk Species; however, the 
Memorandum Lacks Key Elements: 

NRCS has drafted a memorandum of understanding with FWS and AFWA to 
establish and maintain a framework of cooperation to proactively 
conserve at-risk plant and animal species and their habitats.[Footnote 
36] Initial efforts on the memorandum began in January 2005, under the 
direction of the chief of the NRCS, with the aim of developing a 
mechanism that would allow the agency to better utilize its programs to 
address the needs of declining species. Currently, the draft memorandum 
states that its purpose is to strengthen cooperation among NRCS, FWS, 
and AFWA to proactively conserve at-risk plant and animal species and 
their habitats. The memorandum also states that it is the intent of 
NRCS, FWS, and AFWA to identify and create more opportunities to work 
together to preempt the need to list additional species under the 
Endangered Species Act, foster the recovery of species already listed, 
and address similar needs for species that are of conservation concern 
to states. 

Under the draft memorandum, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA would be responsible 
for taking individual and joint actions to more effectively meet their 
obligations and priorities for conserving at-risk species and their 
habitats. The draft memorandum stresses the importance of federal and 
state fish and wildlife agencies participating on USDA's state 
technical committees. Additionally, the draft memorandum directs NRCS 
to provide information to FWS and state fish and wildlife agencies 
about NRCS-administered programs that could assist them in meeting 
species' needs. These actions and others in the draft memorandum focus 
on sharing information about species and habitat needs and where 
conservation program funds might be available to address these needs. 
Moreover, the draft memorandum addresses actions between NRCS and FWS 
to streamline regulatory processes, such as the Endangered Species Act 
consultation process. To help evaluate the effectiveness of the 
memorandum of understanding, the draft document states that NRCS, FWS, 
and AFWA will develop protocols for gathering data for reporting and 
assessing the effectiveness of conservation efforts for at-risk species 
and their habitats; however, the memorandum does not include any 
specific monitoring or reporting responsibilities. In addition, the 
draft memorandum does not include FSA even though CRP enrolls nearly 36 
million acres of land each year. NRCS officials told us that FSA was 
not included in the drafting of the memorandum because adding another 
entity would have slowed down the development and review process. NRCS 
and FSA officials said they saw no reason why FSA could not be added to 
the agreement in the future. 

While intrinsically valuable, interagency coordination is not always 
easy. Each agency has its own unique mission and program priorities, 
regulations, and organizational culture. Sometimes coordinating within 
an individual agency can be challenging as well. Based on literature 
reviews, expert interviews, and reviews of numerous coordination 
efforts among agencies, in an October 2005 report, we identified eight 
practices that help enhance and sustain collaboration.[Footnote 37] 
Among the practices highlighted in the report were the need to define 
and articulate a common outcome; identify and address needs by 
leveraging resources; agree on roles and responsibilities; and develop 
mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of 
collaborative efforts. In the report, we pointed out that federal 
agencies engaging in collaborative efforts need to create the means to 
monitor and evaluate their efforts to enable them to identify areas for 
improvement. We found that reporting on these activities can provide 
key decision makers within the agencies, as well as clients and 
stakeholders, important feedback that they can use to improve both 
policy and operational effectiveness. 

We recognize that the memorandum of understanding is still in draft 
form and believe that once finalized, it could contribute to better 
coordination for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species. In 
fact, the draft memorandum embraces many of the actions that survey 
respondents highlighted as examples of successful coordination, such as 
using state technical committees to better implement on-the-ground 
conservation, sharing information, and leveraging resources. The draft 
memorandum also contains some of the elements that we have previously 
identified as being important to successful collaborative efforts. For 
example, the draft memorandum articulates a common outcome, defines 
roles and responsibilities, and discusses the need to share information 
in order to leverage resources as well as develop protocols to produce 
comparable data for reporting and assessing on their efforts. However, 
the draft document does not have monitoring and reporting mechanisms 
for ensuring that coordination takes place, including who will be 
responsible for monitoring and reporting, and the time frames for doing 
so. Without such elements, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA cannot be assured that a 
goal of the draft memorandum--improved coordination for the benefit of 
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species--will be achieved. In 
particular, given that we found that successful coordination between 
USDA and FWS is largely driven by staff motivation, without follow-up 
to monitor and report on implementation status, efforts pursuant to the 
draft memorandum may simply maintain the status quo--those who want to 
coordinate will coordinate, and others will not. Furthermore, FSA is 
not a partner to the draft memorandum. With nearly $1.9 billion in 
conservation investments and about 36 million enrolled acres, CRP-- 
under FSA's administration--has the potential to provide significant 
benefits to imperiled species. 

Conclusions: 

The extent to which viable habitat for threatened, endangered, and 
other at-risk species can be established on private lands is certain to 
be the subject of ongoing debate within the environmental and 
agricultural communities and in the Congress. Because the majority of 
land in the United States is privately-owned, programs that encourage 
private landowners to implement conservation actions on their lands are 
critical to protecting imperiled species. USDA's conservation programs 
provide billions of dollars annually to agricultural producers and 
others for taking steps to address a myriad of environmental and 
natural resource concerns, including restoring wildlife habitat. As 
Congress and federal agencies consider legislative and programmatic 
alternatives to better address at-risk species, it is essential that we 
understand the factors that might motivate a private landowner to 
choose to participate in conservation programs to benefit imperiled 
species. While financial incentives weigh heavy in a landowner's 
decision, other factors such as fears about regulatory and paperwork 
burdens also play a role. Taking steps to increase landowner 
participation in USDA programs, however, must be complimented by 
efforts to ensure that the intended benefits to species are meaningful. 
Moreover, improving coordination between USDA and FWS--the nation's 
experts on conserving natural resources and threatened and endangered 
species--should help ensure that conservation program investment 
decisions provide the most benefit to threatened, endangered, and other 
at-risk species and their habitats as possible. While the draft 
memorandum of understanding between the two agencies is an important 
step toward improving coordination, without monitoring and reporting 
mechanisms, NRCS and FWS lack important tools for ensuring the 
effectiveness and sustainability of their collaborative efforts. 
Furthermore, the draft memorandum omits FSA, a key agency that 
administers CRP, the largest conservation program in the United States-
-and thus fails to capitalize on an opportunity to coordinate 
investments from this $2 billion program to better address at-risk 
species and their habitats. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance and sustain coordination at USDA's and FWS's field offices 
at the state and local level for the benefit of threatened, endangered, 
and other at-risk species, we recommend that the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and of the Interior: 

* direct the Chief of NRCS and the Director of FWS to work with AFWA to 
incorporate monitoring and reporting mechanisms in their memorandum of 
understanding prior to finalizing it for implementation; and: 

* direct the Chief of NRCS, the Administrator of FSA, and the Director 
of FWS, in cooperation with AFWA, to include FSA as an additional 
partner to the memorandum or develop a separate memorandum of 
understanding to address coordination. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of the Interior 
and Agriculture for review and comment. Interior provided written 
comments (see app. II) and USDA provided oral comments. The departments 
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. However, the 
Department of the Interior suggested that we direct our recommendations 
to NRCS instead of NRCS and FWS together, because our report 
specifically addresses USDA conservation programs and that NRCS is the 
lead agency in the memorandum of understanding. While we understand 
Interior's position, the existing program management arrangement set 
forth in the draft memorandum of understanding makes it necessary to 
address our recommendations to both agencies. Specifically, although 
NRCS initiated development of the draft memorandum, the document does 
not specify that NRCS is the lead agency for preparing and implementing 
it. Rather, USDA, FWS, and AFWA appear as co-equal parties to the 
memorandum. The Department of the Interior also suggested that both 
recommendations should recognize AFWA as a partner to the memorandum of 
understanding. We agree and have modified the recommendations to direct 
the federal agencies to work with AFWA to implement our 
recommendations. With respect to our second recommendation, Interior 
suggested allowing the agencies the option of developing a separate 
memorandum for addressing coordination with FSA. We have modified our 
recommendation to reflect this suggestion. The departments also 
provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report, 
as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and other interested 
parties. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributors to this 
report are listed in appendix IX. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our study were to identify (1) stakeholder views on 
the incentives and disincentives for landowners to benefit threatened 
and endangered species and their habitats through participation in U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs as well as 
suggestions for addressing disincentives to program participation, and 
(2) how USDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are 
coordinating their programs for the benefit of threatened and 
endangered species and their habitats and the factors that agency 
officials believe have contributed to successful coordination. 

Incentives, Disincentives, and Suggestions: 

To identify incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to address the 
disincentives for participating in USDA conservation programs, we 
reviewed the statutes, regulations, and policies for the programs as 
well as other independent reviews of them. We also interviewed USDA 
headquarters officials to obtain information on how these programs were 
implemented at the national, state, and local levels. In addition, we 
conducted site visits in California, including Yolo and Merced 
counties, and Texas, including San Saba and Travis counties, to discuss 
state and local level implementation of the programs and to observe on- 
the-ground implementation of select conservation projects. We also 
conducted telephone surveys with USDA and soil and water conservation 
district officials, and private landowners. 

Telephone Surveys: 

We conducted telephone surveys with a nonprobability sample of 157 USDA 
officials, soil and water conservation district officials, and 
landowners from 19 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
and Washington).[Footnote 38] We selected these states based on three 
criteria: (1) high levels of USDA conservation program allocations for 
the programs we reviewed, (2) high or moderate numbers of threatened 
and endangered species relative to other states, and (3) diversity of 
geographic location. Within these states, we selected at least two 
counties--in some cases as many as four--that had high levels of USDA 
conservation program obligations and had significant threatened and 
endangered species occurrences and diversity in comparison with other 
counties in the state. We surveyed officials in 49 counties across the 
19 states. 

In the different states, we surveyed (1) the state biologist or the 
state conservationist in USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service 
(NRCS), who are responsible for helping to implement or administer many 
of the department's conservation programs and (2) the executive 
director or another state-level official in USDA's Farm Service Agency 
(FSA), which administers USDA's largest conservation program. In the 
different counties we selected, we surveyed (1) the NRCS district 
conservationist, the lead official for administering the agency's 
programs at the county level; (2) soil and water conservation district 
officials, who work with USDA to increase voluntary conservation 
practices among landowners; and (3) private landowners.[Footnote 39] 
The NRCS district conservationists identified an initial list of 
landowners. We selected a nonprobability sample of landowners from this 
list using criteria to include landowners who participate in the USDA 
conservation programs as well as those who were eligible to participate 
but chose not to do so, and to reflect geographic diversity across the 
19 states. In total, we interviewed 71 NRCS officials, 18 FSA 
officials, 44 soil and water conservation district officials, and 24 
landowners. In some cases, soil and water conservation district 
officials were also landowners, and they responded to our questions 
from both perspectives. 

We conducted seven pretests with officials in headquarters and the 
field and one landowner. After each pretest, we conducted an interview 
to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms 
used were precise, (3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the 
respondents, and (4) the questions were unbiased. On the basis of the 
pretests, we made appropriate revisions to the survey. 

Through our telephone survey, we gathered participants' opinions about 
the primary incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to address the 
disincentives for landowners to participate in seven USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species. We asked 
interviewees to identify the USDA conservation programs they had 
knowledge of, and only asked them questions relevant to those programs. 
The survey also included questions specifically for landowners 
regarding their participation in the conservation programs. The survey 
asked a combination of questions that allowed for open-ended and close- 
ended responses. To analyze the open-ended material, we developed clear 
protocols for coding the content into categories. The material was 
independently coded by one individual and then verified by another 
individual. 

We initially selected seven conservation programs to include in our 
review, based on the amount of dollars obligated to these programs and 
the extent to which they might offer benefits to threatened and 
endangered species. These were the Conservation Reserve Program, 
Conservation Security Program, Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, Grassland Reserve 
Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and Wetlands Reserve 
Program. USDA confirmed that these programs were appropriate given our 
objectives. We dropped the responses we collected with respect to the 
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program from our analysis due to the 
lack of familiarity by most respondents with the program. 

Coordination: 

To determine how USDA and FWS are coordinating for the benefit of 
threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and the factors 
that contributed to successful examples of such efforts, we included 
questions in the survey with respect to coordination between the two 
agencies that were posed to USDA officials as well as 18 FWS officials 
in state and regional offices in our 19-state nonprobability sample. We 
asked the USDA and FWS officials to comment on the quality of 
coordination between the agencies at varying levels of government; to 
provide examples of good coordination for the benefit of threatened and 
endangered species in their area; and to identify the factors they 
believed contributed to successful coordination. In addition, we also 
interviewed FWS and USDA officials at each agency's headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., about formal coordination efforts between the 
agencies to benefit threatened and endangered species. We also used our 
site visits in California and Texas to discuss these issues with USDA 
and FWS officials as well as meet with officials from state fish and 
wildlife agencies. 

We performed our work between November 2005 and October 2006 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20240: 

Take Pride In America: 

OCT 10 2006: 

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability 
Office report entitled, "USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views 
on Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered 
Species and Their Habitats," GAO-07-35, dated September 8, 2006. In 
general, we agree with the findings that pertain to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service) and the report's recommendations, as 
discussed below. 

As correctly described in the draft report, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) 
drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Service and the 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) regarding the 
conservation of species at-risk. Since the GAO report specifically 
addresses USDA Conservation Programs, and the USDA's NRCS is the lead 
agency for the MOU, we believe it would be more appropriate for the 
Recommendations for Executive Action to indicate USDA's lead role, 
instead of including the U.S Department of the Interior as a lead. We 
also believe it is important to recognize that the Association of Fish 
and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) is a partner to the MOU and thus has a 
role in determining its content. Further, the second recommendation 
should be revised to include the option of developing a separate 
memorandum of understanding involving the Farm Service Agency (FSA). 
Therefore, we suggest that GAO modify the Recommendations for Executive 
Action, as follows: 

"* direct the Chief of NRCS to work with the Director of FWS and the 
Executive Vice President of AFWA, to incorporate monitoring and 
reporting mechanisms in their memorandum of understanding prior to 
finalizing it for implementation, and: 

"* direct the Chief of NRCS to work with the Administrator of FSA, the 
Director of FWS, and the Executive Vice President of AFWA, to include 
FSA as an additional partner to the memorandum or develop a separate 
memorandum to specifically address coordination involving FSA 
programs." 

The Service is working with NRCS and AFWA to address these 
recommendations. 

The enclosure provides specific technical comments from the Service. We 
hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program: 

Introduction: 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the USDA's largest and 
most ambitious conservation efforts, with approximately 36 million 
acres enrolled and annual payments totaling nearly $1.8 billion through 
June of 2006.[Footnote 40] Administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency 
(FSA), CRP was established by the Food Security Act of 1985 and 
currently operates in all 50 states.[Footnote 41] The purpose of CRP is 
to provide financial incentives to landowners to conserve and improve 
soil, water, air, and wildlife resources by converting land in 
agricultural production to less intensive uses. Program participants 
agree to adopt a variety of approved conservation practices such as 
installing structures, planting vegetation, or implementing management 
techniques. 

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a subprogram of 
CRP that is implemented on a state-by-state basis. Governors request 
that CREP be implemented in their state to address specific state and 
nationally significant agriculture-related environmental problems, and 
commit to providing a portion of the funds necessary to do so. Of 
foremost concern to CREP are issues relating to water supplies and 
areas around wells, wildlife species endangered by the loss of 
essential habitat, soil erosion, and reduced habitat for fish such as 
salmon. 

Eligibility: 

In order to be eligible for CRP and CREP, a producer must have owned 
and operated the eligible land for at least 12 months prior to close of 
the CRP sign-up period; however, this requirement can be waived under 
certain conditions.[Footnote 42] In addition, the land must meet one of 
several criteria in order to achieve overall program goals, such as 
having a weighted average erosion index of eight or higher, or being 
located in a national or state CRP conservation priority area.[Footnote 
43] 

Eligible lands include: 

* cropland that is planted or considered planted to an agricultural 
commodity for four of the previous six crop years from 1996 to 2001, 
and is physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal 
manner to an agricultural commodity; 

* certain marginal pastureland that is enrolled in the Water Bank 
Program or suitable for use as a riparian buffer or for similar water 
quality purposes;[Footnote 44] or: 

* currently enrolled CRP land nearing expiration of its contract. 

Application Process: 

Farm owners and operators can apply and eventually enroll their land in 
CRP in two ways, through general or continuous sign-up. General sign-up 
generally occurs for a few weeks each year.[Footnote 45] For both 
general and continuous sign-up, applicants must appear at one of FSA's 
2,351 offices and formally enter into a CRP contract. The contract 
contains information on the participant (e.g., name, address, Social 
Security number, and phone number) and information on the conservation 
practices agreed to, the acreage enrolled, and the acreage committed to 
each practice. 

Continuous CRP sign-up, in contrast to general sign-up, is available at 
any time of year for owners who agree to adopt certain high-priority 
conservation practices. These practices include installation of filter 
strips, riparian buffers, grass waterways, shelterbelts, field 
windbreaks, living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, shallow 
water areas for wildlife, and wetland restoration. Continuous sign-up 
participants, like general sign-up participants, sign contracts and 
agree to certain stipulations in return for payments. 

Enrollment in CREP occurs on a continuous basis, permitting farmers and 
ranchers to join the program at any time rather than waiting for 
specific sign-up periods. Enrollment in each state is limited to 
specific geographic areas and practices. A CREP project begins when a 
state, Indian tribe, local government, or local nongovernmental entity 
identifies an agriculture-related environmental issue of state or 
national significance. These parties and FSA then develop a project 
proposal to address particular environmental issues and goals. CREP, 
therefore, is a partnership program among federal and state governments 
and other program participants, and USDA expects non-federal partners 
to provide commitments toward the overall cost of the program. 

Selection Process: 

After applications are screened against program eligibility criteria, 
FSA program staff evaluates them using an environmental benefits index 
that weighs six factors: (1) wildlife habitat benefits; (2) water 
quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching; (3) on- 
farm benefits of reduced soil erosion; (4) enduring environmental 
benefits[Footnote 46]; (5) air-quality benefits from reduced wind 
erosion; and (6) cost. FSA officials at the national level identify an 
environmental benefit index score cutoff value to determine which 
applications to accept after analyzing and ranking all eligible offers. 
FSA strives to ensure that, by using the index, only the most 
environmentally sensitive lands are selected and that all offers are 
considered fairly and equitably. CRP is a competitive program, 
therefore producers who may have met previous signup index cutoffs are 
not guaranteed a contract under future sign-ups. As previously noted, 
under continuous sign-up, all applicants that meet eligibility 
requirements are accepted, provided acreage limits are not exceeded. 

CREP applications are selected based on the extent to which they 
improve water quality, erosion control, and wildlife habitat related to 
agricultural use in specific geographic areas, where specific 
environmental concerns are of a high priority.[Footnote 47] CREP 
applications are submitted to USDA by the governor of a state that is 
involved in the application, after which USDA will convene an 
interagency panel to review the proposal. The comments of the panel are 
forwarded to the state for consideration in the development of a final 
proposal that is set forth in a memorandum of agreement between the 
governor and the Secretary of Agriculture. As of June 2006, there were 
37 CREP agreements in effect in 29 states. 

Payments and Conditions: 

CRP contracts generally require a 10-to 15-year commitment. By signing 
a contract, participants agree to apply specific conservation practices 
on their land, to file forms needed to determine limits on payments, 
and to perform certain management work. USDA and the participant agree 
on a conservation plan that describes the vegetative or water cover to 
be established, completion dates, and estimated environmental benefits. 
Agency officials primarily rely on data provided by participants to 
determine compliance with the agreement, but will also make occasional 
spot checks of the land. 

In return for implementing conservation practices, general CRP 
participants receive annual rental payments that average about $48 an 
acre (payments vary with prevailing local rental rates, not exceeding 
local dryland or non-irrigated rates). In addition, participants 
receive cost-share payments for up to one-half the cost of implementing 
approved conservation practices. Furthermore, maintenance incentive 
payments are available where an additional amount up to $5 per acre may 
be included with the annual rental payment to perform certain 
maintenance obligations. Additional incentives of up to 20 percent of 
the annual payment are available for certain continuous sign-up 
practices (defined below). Participants may also receive technical 
assistance from a handful of entities, including USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which provides technical land- 
eligibility determinations and advice on conservation planning and 
implementation techniques. 

Under continuous CRP, FSA will offer annual rental payments as well as 
financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the soil rental rate for 
specific conservation practices,[Footnote 48] and an additional 10 
percent can be added for land located with EPA-designated wellhead 
protection areas. Continuous sign-up enrollees may also receive added 
up-front and annual financial incentives for participation. Incentive 
payments to encourage practices supported by continuous sign-up can 
include $100 to $150 an acre for selected practices (depending on 
contract length) and single payments of up to 40 percent for the cost 
of installing the practice (known as a practice incentive payment). 

Like CRP, CREP contracts require a 10-to 15-year commitment to keep 
lands out of agricultural production. FSA uses CRP funding to pay a 
percentage of the program's cost, while state, tribal governments or 
other non-federal sources provide the balance of the funds. States and 
private groups involved in the effort may also provide technical 
support and other in-kind services. A federal annual rental rate, 
including an FSA state committee-determined maintenance incentive 
payment, is offered, plus a cost-share of up to 50 percent of the 
eligible costs to install the practice. Participants may also obtain 20 
percent annual bonus payments, above the rental payment, for installing 
certain high priority practices such as certain types of filter strips 
or riparian buffers. Furthermore, the program generally offers a sign- 
up incentive for participants to install specific practices. 

Summary of Selected Survey Responses: 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions 
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for CRP by the 
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ 
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in 
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most 
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed. 

* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in CRP 
included: (1) financial; (2) a personal interest in conservation; and 
(3) program criteria that give greater consideration to projects that 
directly address threatened and endangered, and other at-risk species. 

* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in CRP 
included: (1) limited funding for both the program and participants, 
(2) restrictive eligibility and participation requirements, and (3) 
fears about government regulations. 

* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for 
CRP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2) providing 
greater education and outreach, and (3) increasing flexibility in 
program eligibility and participation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program: 

Introduction: 

The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was first authorized in the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and is administered by 
the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).[Footnote 49] 
CSP is generally regarded as the most comprehensive green payments 
program developed in the United States, primarily because CSP promotes 
integrated, whole-farm planning for conservation. Similar to other USDA 
conservation programs, CSP provides financial and technical assistance 
to producers to promote conservation and the improvement of soil, 
water, air, energy, and plant and animal life on private and tribal 
agricultural lands. In contrast to the other programs, CSP provides 
assistance to farmers and ranchers who already meet specified standards 
of conservation and environmental management in their operations. CSP 
rewards three levels, or tiers, of conservation treatment for qualified 
producers who enter into CSP contracts with NRCS, and provides higher 
payments as landowners increase the level of conservation implemented 
on their lands. Although CSP is available only in selected watersheds 
in all 50 states, the intent is to implement the program in all 
watersheds by 2011.[Footnote 50] NRCS held the first CSP sign-up in 
fiscal year 2004, which led to contracts covering nearly 1.9 million 
acres in 18 watersheds across 22 states, and about $34.6 million in 
payments to landowners. In fiscal year 2005, over 9 million acres in 
220 watersheds across all 50 states and Puerto Rico were covered, with 
payments totaling about $171.4 million (including payments for 
contracts approved in 2004).[Footnote 51] 

Eligibility: 

CSP is available to farmers and ranchers who already meet specified 
standards of conservation and environmental management in their 
operations. To be eligible, landowners must meet several criteria 
including: (1) land must be private agricultural land, forested land 
that is an incidental part of an agricultural operation, or tribal 
land, with the majority of the agricultural operation located within a 
selected priority watershed; (2) the applicant must be in compliance 
with highly erodible land and wetlands provisions of the Food Security 
Act of 1985 and generally must have control of the land for the life of 
the contract; and (3) the applicant must share in the risk of producing 
any crop or livestock and be entitled to a share in the crop or 
livestock available for marketing from the operation. Lands that are 
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, or the Grasslands Reserve Program are not eligible for 
CSP.[Footnote 52] 

Application Process: 

NRCS offers periodic sign-ups in specific, priority watersheds. The 
agency requires producers to complete a self-assessment, which includes 
a description of the conservation activities on their operations, to 
determine their eligibility for the program. Once NRCS determines 
eligibility, landowners meet with local NRCS staff to discuss their 
application. In addition to the self-assessment, applicants must submit 
completed program applications, and two years of written documentation 
on their implementation of certain conservation actions, including 
fertilizer, nutrient, and pesticide application schedules, tillage, and 
grazing schedules, as applicable. 

Selection Process: 

In determining which eligible CSP contract applications to accept, NRCS 
first determines whether an application meets the minimum requirements 
for one of three levels, or tiers, of conservation treatment. Once an 
applicant's tier level is established, NRCS uses enrollment categories 
to establish an applicant's eligibility for funding through CSP. To 
qualify for a given tier, each participant must have addressed the 
specified resource concerns in accordance with program regulations on 
part or all of their operation. For instance, tier I participants must 
have addressed soil and water quality resource concerns to a specified 
minimum level of treatment on at least part of the participant's 
operation prior to acceptance into the program.[Footnote 53],[Footnote 
54] Tier II participants must meet tier I requirements on the 
participant's entire operation and must generally treat an additional 
resource concern by the end of the contract period. Tier III 
participants must have addressed all other applicable resource 
concerns, including wildlife habitat, to a minimum level on their 
entire agricultural operation prior to acceptance.[Footnote 55] Some 
state NRCS offices used targeted species assessment criteria, while 
others used general wildlife assessment criteria. According to an NRCS 
official, because habitat needs differ across the nation, it is not 
possible to develop one set of criteria that would work for the whole 
country and apply to all situations in determining which producers 
would qualify for a given tier level. Because of these differences, 
national guidance instructs each state to define its own minimum 
criteria for each of the listed wildlife resource components in the 
national guidance based upon the state's own set of conditions. For 
example, for cropland, the national guidance identifies the amount of 
noncrop vegetative cover such as woodlots, wetlands, or riparian areas 
managed for wildlife as a component that must be addressed and 
instructs NRCS state offices to define the minimum percentage of 
noncrop vegetative cover. 

In addition to these tiers, NRCS establishes enrollment categories and 
subcategories. For the fiscal year 2005 sign-up, five enrollment 
categories were used for cropland, pasture, and rangeland. For example, 
for cropland, the enrollment categories were defined by various levels 
of soil conditioning index scores and the number of stewardship 
practices and activities in place on the farm for at least 2 years. If 
an enrollment category could not be fully funded, subcategories were 
used to determine application funding order within a category. For the 
fiscal year 2005 sign-up, 12 subcategories were used, including the 
factor of whether the agricultural operation is in a designated area 
for threatened and endangered species habitat. 

Payments and Conditions: 

Each of the three CSP tiers has a specified annual payment limit and 
contract period. Tier I contracts are for 5 years and provide annual 
payments of up to $20,000. Tier II contracts are for 5 to 10 years and 
provide annual payments of up to $35,000. Tier III contracts are also 
for 5 to 10 years, but can provide annual payments of up to $45,000. 
These payments may be comprised of four components: (1) an annual 
stewardship component for the base level of conservation treatment 
required for program eligibility (a payment that is calculated 
separately for each land use based on eligible acres, the stewardship 
payment rate, and other factors), (2) an annual existing practice 
component for the maintenance of existing conservation practices (these 
are calculated as a flat rate of 25 percent of the stewardship 
payment), (3) a one-time new practice component for additional approved 
practices, and (4) an annual enhancement component for additional 
activities that provide increased resource benefits beyond the base 
level and conservation treatment that is required for program 
eligibility.[Footnote 56] Currently under CSP, annual enhancement 
payments may be made for five types of activities: (1) the improvement 
of a significant resource concern to a condition that exceeds the 
requirement for the participant's tier of participation and contract 
requirements; (2) an improvement in a priority local resource 
condition, as determined by NRCS, such as water quality or wildlife; 
(3) participation in an on-farm conservation research, demonstration, 
or pilot project; (4) cooperation with other producers to implement 
watershed or regional resource conservation plans that involve at least 
75 percent of the producers in the targeted area; and (5) 
implementation of assessment and evaluation activities relating to 
practices included in the conservation security plan, such as gathering 
plant samples for specific analysis. 

Summary of Selected Survey Responses: 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions 
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for CSP by the 
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ 
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in 
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most 
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed. 

* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in CSP 
included: (1) financial, (2) recognition for good stewardship, and (3) 
a personal interest in conservation. 

* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in CSP 
included: (1) burdensome paperwork requirements, (2) restrictive 
eligibility and implementation requirements, (3) fears about government 
regulations, and (4) limited funding for both programs and 
participants. 

* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for 
CSP participation included: (1) greater education and outreach, (2) 
increasing funding, and (3) streamlining processes. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program: 

Introduction: 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is administered by 
USDA's NRCS and provides technical and financial assistance to farmers 
and ranchers to address soil, water, air, and related natural resources 
concerns, and encourages enhancements on lands to be made in an 
environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. NRCS provides 
assistance to agricultural producers in a manner that promotes 
agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals, 
and assists participants in complying with federal and state 
environmental laws. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996 first authorized EQIP, which has been reauthorized and amended 
in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. EQIP generally 
focuses on five national priorities: promoting at-risk species habitat 
conservation; reducing non-point source pollution; conserving ground 
and surface water resources; reducing air emissions, such as 
particulate matter and nitrogen oxides; and reducing soil erosion and 
sedimentation. 

A locally-led process adapts the national priorities to address local 
resource concerns and identifies which conservation practices will be 
eligible for financial assistance in each state. NRCS state 
conservationists can delegate the authority to administer parts of the 
program to the local level--because of this, EQIP implementation can 
differ between states and even between counties. Participants receive 
cost-share and incentive payments under contracts that last for at 
least one year after the practices have been implemented, and at most, 
for 10 years. 

In fiscal year 2005, NRCS obligated more than $794 million in financial 
assistance to enter into more than 49,000 EQIP contracts. Despite the 
sizeable allocation, an additional 33,000 applications went unfunded 
that year. In fiscal year 2006, NRCS obligated an estimated $1 billion 
for EQIP. 

Eligibility: 

EQIP is available in all 50 states.[Footnote 57] To be eligible, 
applicants must be engaged in livestock or agricultural production. 
State and local governments are not eligible for EQIP payments. 
Applicants must be in compliance with the highly erodible land and 
wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, which 
aim to discourage farmers from producing crops on wetlands or highly 
erodible land without erosion protection, and their average adjusted 
gross income for the preceding three years must not exceed $2.5 
million, in accordance with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002.[Footnote 58] Lands that are eligible include those where 
agricultural commodities or livestock are produced, including cropland; 
rangeland; grassland; pasture land; private, non-industrial forestland; 
and other land determined to pose a serious threat to soil, air, water, 
or related resources. Lands that are already under a Conservation 
Reserve Program contract are not eligible for EQIP. 

Application Process: 

Applicants may apply for EQIP through a continuous sign-up process by 
submitting applications to local USDA offices. The NRCS state 
conservationist or designee then works with the applicant to develop an 
EQIP plan of operations. Applications are evaluated periodically. 

Selection Process: 

NRCS allocates funds from the national level to NRCS state offices 
based on national priorities.[Footnote 59] NRCS's state and local 
offices then identify their own priority resource concerns and 
determine the funding allocation to be made from the state offices to 
local offices in each state. State and local NRCS offices select 
eligible conservation practices and create lists of their costs to 
address priority resource concerns, and then develop a ranking process 
to guide the selection and prioritization of applications. This locally-
led process is guided by advice from the NRCS state technical committee 
and associated local working groups in each state. The NRCS state 
conservationist, or designated local conservationist, ranks each 
application using the locally-developed ranking process. When funds are 
allocated, the state conservationist or designated conservationist 
makes offers to those landowners whose applications ranked the highest. 

Payments and Conditions: 

NRCS offers cost-share and incentive payments to participants in EQIP. 
Conservation practices that are eligible for cost-sharing are 
determined by NRCS with advice from state technical committees and 
local work groups, and may include installing filter strips, manure 
management facilities, caps on abandoned wells, and other activities. 
NRCS may provide up to 75 percent of the cost of implementing practices 
to program participants, and up to 90 percent for limited-resource and 
beginning farmers and ranchers. The specific cost-share rate for each 
practice is determined by NRCS with advice from state technical 
committees and local work groups. Incentive payments may be made to 
encourage a participant to perform certain land management practices 
that they might not otherwise implement, such as wildlife habitat or 
irrigation water management. Incentive payment rates and amounts are 
set by NRCS with advice from state technical committees and local work 
groups and may be provided for up to three years. 

Summary of Selected Survey Responses: 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions 
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for EQIP by the 
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ 
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in 
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most 
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed. 

* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in EQIP 
included: (1) financial benefits; (2) program criteria that give 
greater consideration to projects that directly address threatened, 
endangered, and other at-risk species; (3) a landowner's personal 
interest in conservation; and (4) receiving technical assistance. 

* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in 
EQIP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and 
participants, (2) burdensome paperwork requirements, (3) fears about 
government regulations, (4) restrictive eligibility and participation 
requirements, and (5) that program implementation can hinder current or 
future agricultural production. 

* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for 
EQIP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2) providing 
greater education and outreach, (3) streamlining paperwork 
requirements, and (4) increasing flexibility in program eligibility and 
participation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program: 

Introduction: 

The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) helps landowners and operators 
restore and protect grassland, including rangeland, pastureland, shrub 
land, and certain other lands, while maintaining some grazing uses by 
using a combination of easement, rental, and restoration agreements. 
GRP emphasizes support for working grazing operations; enhancing plant 
and animal biodiversity; and protecting grassland and land containing 
shrubs and forbs under threat of conversion to cropping, urban 
development, and other activities. GRP is administered by USDA's NRCS 
and FSA, in cooperation with the USDA's Forest Service. GRP was first 
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 for up 
to $254 million through fiscal year 2007, and enrollment is capped at 2 
million acres. 

Eligibility: 

To be eligible for easement agreements under GRP, landowners must show 
clear title to the land, while both titled landowners and other 
operators, such as those who rent land for agricultural production, are 
eligible for rental and restoration agreements. However, other 
operators must provide evidence that they will have control of the 
property for the length of a contracted agreement and have landowner 
concurrence. Individuals or entities that have an average adjusted 
gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax years immediately 
preceding the year the contract is approved are not eligible to receive 
program benefits or payments, except when 75 percent of the adjusted 
gross income is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations. 
To be eligible for a restoration agreement, NRCS, in consultation with 
the program participant, must determine if the proposed land needs 
restoration actions and meets program requirements. 

GRP is available only for privately owned or tribal lands, and 
participants generally must enroll at least 40 contiguous acres under 
an agreement. The types of land that are eligible for enrollment 
include grasslands; land that contains forbs (including improved 
rangeland and pastureland or shrub land); or land that is located in an 
area that historically has been dominated by grassland, forbs, or 
shrubs that has the potential to serve as wildlife habitat of 
significant ecological value. 

Application Process: 

Eligible landowners and operators may provide applications to either 
NRCS or FSA on a continuous sign-up basis. GRP offers several 
enrollment options: 30-year and permanent easements; 10, 15, 20, or 30- 
year rental agreements; and cost-share restoration agreements, which 
may be used in conjunction with an easement or rental agreement. 

Selection Process: 

Each state establishes ranking criteria to prioritize the enrollment of 
working grasslands. The ranking criteria consider threats of 
conversion, including cropping, invasive species, urban development, 
and other activities that threaten plant and animal diversity on 
grazing land. 

Payments and Conditions: 

Under GRP contracts, participants voluntarily limit future use of 
enrolled land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing 
practices. Participants can produce hay, mow, or harvest for seed 
production (subject to certain restrictions during the nesting season 
of bird species that are in significant decline or those that are 
protected under federal or state law); conduct fire rehabilitation; and 
construct firebreaks and fences. GRP contracts and easements prohibit 
the production of crops (other than hay), fruit trees, and vineyards 
that require breaking the soil surface and any other activity that 
would disturb the surface of the land, except for appropriate land 
management activities included in a conservation plan. There are 
several types of payment arrangements under the program. 

* Permanent Easement. This easement applies to the enrolled land in 
perpetuity. Easement payments for this option equal the fair market 
value, less the grassland value of the land encumbered by the easement. 
These values are determined using an appraisal. 

* Thirty-year Easement. USDA provides an easement payment equal to 30 
percent of the fair market value of the land, less the grassland value 
of the land encumbered by the easement. 

* Rental Agreement. Participants may choose a 10, 15, 20, or 30-year 
contract. USDA provides annual payments in an amount that is not more 
than 75 percent of the grazing value of the land covered by the 
agreement for the life of the agreement. 

* Restoration agreement. Restoration agreements are only authorized to 
be used under GRP in conjunction with easements and rental agreements 
provided under the program. Participants are paid upon certification of 
the completion of the approved practice. The combined total cost-share 
provided by federal or state governments may not exceed 100 percent of 
the total actual cost of the restoration project. 

Summary of Selected Survey Responses: 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions 
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for GRP by the 
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ 
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in 
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most 
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed. 

* The most frequently cited incentives for participation in GRP 
included: (1) financial; (2) program criteria that give greater 
consideration to projects that directly address threatened and 
endangered, and other at-risk species; and (3) a personal interest in 
conservation. 

* The most frequently cited disincentives for participation in GRP 
included: (1) limited funding for both the program and participants, 
(2) fears about government regulations, (3) restrictive eligibility and 
participation requirements, and (4) burdensome paperwork requirements. 

* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for 
GRP participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2) providing 
greater education and outreach. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program: 

Introduction: 

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is administered by USDA's NRCS and 
authorizes the agency to provide technical and financial assistance to 
eligible landowners to restore, enhance, and protect wetlands. WRP was 
first authorized under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade 
Act of 1990, and was later reauthorized and amended in the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The program has an acreage 
enrollment limit rather than a funding limit. The 2002 act authorized 
up to 2,275,000 acres to be covered under WRP and, as of September 
2004, over 7,800 projects on nearly 1.5 million acres were enrolled in 
the program. WRP is available in all 50 States and the District of 
Columbia.[Footnote 60] 

Eligibility: 

To be eligible for WRP, land must be capable of restoring wetland 
functioning and be able to provide wildlife benefits. Eligible types of 
lands include farmed wetlands, riparian areas, lands adjacent to 
protected wetlands that contribute significantly to wetland functions 
and values, and previously restored wetlands that need long-term 
protection. Lands that are expressly ineligible for funding under WRP 
include lands converted to wetlands after December 23, 1985; lands with 
timber stands established under a Conservation Reserve Program 
contract; federal lands; and lands where conditions make restoration 
impossible. 

In general, to be eligible for funding under GRP, landowners must have 
owned the land for at least 12 months prior to enrolling it in the 
program (unless the land was inherited), exercised the landowner's 
right of redemption after foreclosure, or, if the land was purchased 
within 12 months of a WRP application, must have proven that the land 
was not obtained for the purpose of enrolling it in the program. 
Individuals or entities that have an average adjusted gross income 
exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax years immediately preceding 
the year a WRP contract is approved are not eligible to receive program 
benefits or payments under the program unless at least 75 percent of 
the adjusted gross income is derived from farming, ranching, or 
forestry operations. 

Application Process: 

Landowners may file an application for a conservation easement or a 
cost-share restoration agreement with USDA under WRP at any time. 
Applications can be filed in person at a USDA office or electronically, 
and applicants must have a copy of the easement deed and other forms 
necessary for the transfer of land rights. USDA carries out activities 
associated with recording the easement in the local land records 
office, including recording fees, charges for abstracts, survey and 
appraisal fees, and title insurance. 

Selection Process: 

NRCS evaluates each application and makes site visits to assess a 
proposed project's technical and biological merits. The applications 
are ranked according to criteria based on broad national guidelines. 
NRCS state offices make decisions about which applications to accept. 
NRCS state conservationists have the authority to accept projects 
outside of this ranking process if they occur in "special project" 
areas, such as specific geographic areas that the state conservationist 
has identified. This enables NRCS to fund wetlands projects in areas 
that have been determined important for wetland restoration activities, 
regardless of individual application ranking scores. 

Payment and Conditions: 

Under WRP contracts, participants voluntarily limit future use of 
enrolled land while retaining ownership. There are several types of 
payment arrangements under the program. 

Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. 
Payments for permanent easements are done annually and are equal to 
whichever is lower--the agricultural value of the land, an established 
payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In addition to 
paying for the easement, USDA pays 100 percent of the costs of 
restoring wetland functioning. 

30-Year Easement. Easement payments through this option are up to 75 
percent of what would be paid for a permanent easement, including up to 
75 percent of restoration costs. 

Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. Under this type of agreement, 
landowners commit to restoring degraded or lost wetland habitat, 
generally for a minimum of 10 years, without signing an easement 
agreement. USDA pays up to 75 percent of the cost of the restoration 
activity. 

Summary of Selected Survey Responses: 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions 
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for WRP by the 
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ 
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in 
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most 
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed. 

* The most frequently cited incentives for participation in WRP 
included: (1) financial; (2) a personal interest in conservation; and 
(3) program criteria that give greater consideration to projects that 
directly address threatened and endangered, and other at-risk species. 

* The most frequently cited disincentives for participation in WRP 
included: (1) burdensome paperwork requirements, (2) fears about 
government regulations, (3) limited funding for both the program and 
participants, (4) restrictive eligibility and implementation 
requirements, (5) potential for participation in the program to hinder 
current and/or future agricultural production, and (6) length of the 
required contract. 

* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for 
WRP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2) providing 
greater education and outreach, and (3) increasing flexibility in 
program eligibility and participation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: 

Introduction: 

The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 authorized 
USDA's NRCS to work with landowners to develop wildlife habitat on 
their property through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
(WHIP).[Footnote 61] Through WHIP contracts, NRCS provides technical 
advice and financial assistance--through cost sharing on conservation 
projects--to landowners and others to develop upland, wetland, 
riparian, and aquatic habitat areas on their property. Although the 
primary purpose of WHIP is wildlife habitat development and 
enhancement, practices installed as a result of WHIP funding are often 
beneficial to farming and ranching such as actions to control invasive 
species, stabilize streambanks, and re-establish native vegetation. In 
fiscal year 2005, USDA provided more than $34.3 million in financial 
assistance, and enrolled approximately 458,000 acres in over 3,300 WHIP 
agreements. WHIP participants may also receive financial and other 
assistance from other entities such as state and local government 
agencies, conservation districts, and private organizations. In fiscal 
year 2005, partners contributed almost $10 million to help WHIP 
participants establish wildlife practices on enrolled lands. 

Eligibility: 

WHIP is available in all 50 states.[Footnote 62] To be eligible, an 
entity must own or have control of the land that is to be enrolled in 
the program for the duration of the contract. Lands may be privately 
owned; federally owned, if the primary benefit of the proposed project 
will be to private or tribal land; tribal land; or, in some cases, 
state and locally owned land. Lands that are already enrolled in some 
of the other USDA conservation programs are generally not eligible for 
WHIP. 

Application Process: 

Applicants may apply for WHIP at any time, through a continuous sign-up 
process. 

Selection Process: 

NRCS selects applications based on criteria that are developed pursuant 
to each state's WHIP implementation plan, which identifies wildlife 
habitat needs, and national priorities. NRCS state offices develop 
these plans with assistance from their respective state technical 
committees. Ranking criteria give priority to projects that will 
protect habitat or species of national or regional significance, or 
address needs in a state's WHIP plan. If land is determined to be 
eligible, NRCS also places an emphasis on enrolling land in habitat 
areas where wildlife species are experiencing declines or have 
significantly reduced populations, and where state and local partners 
and Indian Tribes have identified important wildlife and fishery needs. 
NRCS also emphasizes projects that include practices that are 
beneficial to fish and wildlife, but may not otherwise be funded. 

Payments and Conditions: 

NRCS provides cost-share payments to landowners that are generally 
between 5 and 10 years in length depending on the practices 
installed.[Footnote 63] NRCS provides these payments to landowners who 
agree to adopt certain conservation practices, including land 
management practices (e.g., timber stand improvement to improve forest 
health); vegetation practices (e.g., planting native grasses to provide 
wildlife habitat); and structural practices (e.g., fencing to keep 
livestock out of streams). NRCS may provide up to 75 percent of the 
cost of installing practices. NRCS will provide greater cost-share 
payments for landowners that sign 15-year contracts and undertake 
habitat development practices on essential plant and animal habitat. 
Partners, including public agencies, nonprofit organizations and 
others, may also assist through providing cost-share dollars, supplying 
equipment, or installing practices for the participants. 

Summary of Selected Survey Responses: 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions 
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation 
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their 
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for WHIP by the 
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ 
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in 
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most 
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed. 

* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in WHIP 
included: (1) financial, (2) a personal interest in conservation, (3) 
program criteria that give greater consideration to projects that 
directly address threatened and endangered species and other at-risk 
species, and (4) the ability to receive technical assistance. 

* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in 
WHIP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and 
participants, (2) fears about government regulations, (3) burdensome 
paperwork requirements, and (4) restrictive eligibility and 
implementation requirements. 

* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for 
WHIP participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2) providing 
greater education and outreach. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Trish McClure, (202) 512-6318: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Ulana Bihun, John Delicath, 
John Johnson, Richard Johnson, Jean McSween, Leslie Pollock, and Aaron 
Shiffrin made key contributions to this report. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] The Department of the Interior is responsible for freshwater and 
land species while the Department of Commerce is responsible for 
anadromous fish and most marine species; the departments have delegated 
implementation responsibility to FWS and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, respectively. In addition, the act directs all federal 
agencies to utilize their authorities to conserve threatened and 
endangered species. 

[2] Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Congressional 
Budget Office estimated that the 2002 law increased mandatory spending 
by a total of $9.2 billion over 6 years, to a total of $20.8 billion. 

[3] Funding amounts provided for each program are actual obligations 
for fiscal year 2005. Additional information on these conservation 
programs is provided in appendices IV through IX of this report. 

[4] Soil and water conservation districts are units of state government 
that operate at the local level and are charged with identifying 
natural resource problems within their boundaries and offering 
assistance in resolving them. Throughout this report, we refer to 
individuals who own, manage, lease, or rent land that may be used for 
agricultural production or ranching as "landowners." 

[5] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

[6] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make 
inferences about a population because, in a nonprobability sample, some 
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown 
chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

[7] GAO-06-15. 

[8] According to the act, conserve means to use all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any threatened or endangered 
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the act 
are no longer necessary. 

[9] Candidate species are plants and animals for which FWS has 
sufficient information on their biological status and the threats they 
face to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act, but for which higher priority listing activities are 
precluding their listing under the act. 

[10] Critical habitat refers to habitat that has features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection. The act includes 
provisions for excluding areas from designation as critical habitat if 
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat. 

[11] GAO, Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is 
Needed to Improve the Consultation Process, GAO-04-93 (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004). By law, regulation, and policy, consultations 
should take between 30 and 135 days, depending on the level of review 
required. 

[12] The total number of conservation-related programs can be defined 
in several ways. As described by the Congressional Research Service, 
some programs have subprogram components, while others were created by 
administrative action. Above and beyond these 20 programs, Congress has 
authorized a large number of other small discretionary programs (in 
terms of spending levels), usually with a specific geographic focus; 
some of these programs have never been funded or implemented. The 
programs referred to in this report are only those created by Congress. 

[13] Additional information on these conservation programs is provided 
in appendixes III through VIII of this report. 

[14] As of August 2006, USDA had not developed national priorities for 
the other four programs. 

[15] Some of the other incentives identified less frequently by survey 
respondents included being recognized for good stewardship and the 
ability to receive technical assistance from USDA; a total of 16 types 
of incentives were identified by respondents. 

[16] For beginning farmers and ranchers and limited resource producers, 
USDA's cost-share percentage may be up to 90 percent. 

[17] An easement is an interest in another person's land entitling the 
easement owner to a limited use of the land, or a right to preclude 
specified uses in the easement area by others. The easement becomes a 
part of the property deed and remains in effect for the life of the 
agreement. 

[18] For most of the six USDA programs we reviewed, it was agency 
officials, rather than landowners or local soil and water conservation 
district officials, who mentioned this as a primary incentive. 

[19] According to an agency official in Montana, the goal is to spend 
20 percent of EQIP funding on special initiatives. The percentage may 
vary from year to year depending on program interest and actual program 
expenditures. 

[20] Survey respondents identified a total of 21 types of 
disincentives. Some of the other disincentives that were identified 
less frequently included a limited awareness of the available USDA 
conservation programs and excessive contract lengths. 

[21] This disincentive was reported by all types of respondents-- 
officials from NRCS, FSA, and soil and water conservation districts, 
and landowners. 

[22] Plants occurring on nonfederal lands, however, are not protected 
under the Endangered Species Act, unless they are protected under state 
law. 

[23] Permits may be needed, for example, to meet local zoning 
regulations or Clean Water Act requirements. 

[24] As specified in its regulations, CRP does allow for some managed 
haying and grazing and thus there is not a complete inability to 
disturb grass stands. For example, under new CRP contracts mid-contract 
management is required. 

[25] The adjusted gross income provision of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 affects eligibility for the six programs that 
are the focus of this report. Individuals or entities that have an 
average adjusted gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax 
years immediately prior to the year the contract is approved are 
generally not eligible to receive program benefits or payments. 
However, the individual or entity may be eligible when at least 75 
percent of the adjusted gross income is derived from farming, ranching, 
or forestry operations. 

[26] According to NRCS, the soil conditioning index can predict the 
consequences of cropping systems and tillage practices on the status of 
soil organic matter, which is a primary indicator of soil quality and 
an important factor in carbon sequestration and global climate change. 
The index provides a means to evaluate and design conservation systems 
that maintain or improve soil condition, and gives an overall rating, 
taking into consideration biomass production, field operations, and 
erosion rates. 

[27] Survey respondents identified a total of 21 suggestions to address 
disincentives to participating in these programs. 

[28] According to USDA officials, NRCS will implement a single 
application form in fiscal year 2007 for several programs, including 
CSP, EQIP, and WHIP. 

[29] FWS and USDA officials noted in commenting on a draft of this 
report that CRP contracts can allow for management actions in some 
cases. 

[30] While some FWS officials said that conservation program 
investments should be targeted to specific geographic areas, about 
three-quarters of the officials we interviewed did not believe 
designated critical habitat should be used to target conservation 
program investments because few species have designated critical 
habitat, designations have sometimes excluded private lands, and of the 
negative perceptions associated with designated critical habitat. 

[31] Regulations for WRP require that NRCS consult with FWS on 
implementation of the program and in establishing program policies, 
although all final decisions regarding WRP are made by NRCS. 

[32] In general, funds from most of USDA's conservation programs cannot 
be combined with each other for implementation of the same conservation 
practice on the same land, although they can be combined with funds 
from other federal sources such as FWS programs. In no case, however, 
can combined funding exceed 100 percent of the actual cost of 
implementing a conservation practice. 

[33] A recharge area is an area of land that allows rainwater to soak 
into the earth's surface to replenish groundwater resources. 

[34] NRCS is required to invite FWS representatives to participate on 
state technical committees, and it is FWS policy to have 
representatives serve as members of these committees. 

[35] According to NRCS and FWS officials, this training was initiated 
by the agencies to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which 
has instigated more coordination between USDA and FWS. 

[36] AFWA represents state fish and wildlife agencies' interests in 
fish and wildlife management for the 56 states and territories in the 
United States. 

[37] GAO-06-15. 

[38] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make 
inferences about a population because, in a nonprobability sample, some 
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown 
chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

[39] The respondents we identify as "landowners" also included people 
who rent or lease land for agricultural or livestock production. 

[40] Limits on enrolled CRP acreage have varied since the program's 
inception, from 45 million acres in 1985, to 36.4 million acres in 
1996, to the most recent limit of 39.2 million acres. 

[41] Pub. L. No. 99-198 § 1231, 99 Stat. 1509. CRP also operates in 
Puerto Rico. 

[42] 7 C.F.R. § 1410.5 defines eligible program participants, and 7 
C.F.R. § 1410.6 defines land eligible for enrollment in the CRP. 

[43] The erosion index is a numerical expression of the potential of a 
soil to erode, considering the physical and chemical properties of the 
soil and climatic conditions where it is located. The higher the index, 
the greater the investment needed to maintain the sustainability of the 
soil resource base if intensively cropped. Scores above eight are 
equated to highly erodible land. 

[44] The original purpose of the Water Bank Program was to conserve 
water, preserve and improve the condition of migratory waterfowl 
habitat and other wildlife resources, and secure other wildlife 
benefits through 10-year land use agreements with landowners and 
operators in important migratory waterfowl nesting and breeding areas. 

[45] The most recent sign-up, sign-up 33, took place between March 27th 
and April 14th, 2006. 

[46] The enduring environmental benefits factor is an evaluation of the 
likelihood for certain conservation practices to remain in place beyond 
the CRP contract period. 

[47] In particular, CREP supports particular conservation initiatives 
such as installing filter strips and forested buffers to protect 
streams, lakes, and rivers from sedimentation and agricultural runoff. 
CREP also encourages landowners to develop and restore wetlands by 
planting appropriate ground cover. 

[48] These practices include installation of filter strips, riparian 
buffers, grass waterways, shelterbelts, field windbreaks, living snow 
fences, salinity reducing vegetation, shallow water areas for wildlife, 
and wetland restoration. 

[49] The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the 
Food Security Act of 1985 and required the Secretary of Agriculture to 
establish CSP. 

[50] CSP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas. 

[51] NRCS plans to accept CSP contract applications from eligible 
producers in each of the nation's 2,119 watersheds. NRCS anticipates it 
will take 8 years--fiscal years 2004 through 2011--to implement the 
program to all watersheds. 

[52] The following land is not eligible for any payment component in 
CSP: land that is used for crop production after May 13, 2002 that had 
not been planted, considered to be planted, or devoted to crop 
production, as determined by NRCS, for at least 4 of the 6 years 
preceding May 13, 2002. 

[53] Although the law required producers to address at least one 
resource of concern under CSP, NRCS program regulations require 
producers to treat at least two resources--soil and water--to be 
eligible for the program. 

[54] Soil quality practices include crop rotations, cover crops, 
tillage practices, prescribed grazing, and providing adequate bind 
barriers. Water quality practices include conservation tillage, filter 
strips, terraces, grassed waterways, managed access to water courses, 
nutrient and pesticide management, prescribed grazing, and irrigation 
water management. 

[55] Wildlife habitat could also be a factor in determining applicant 
eligibility for tier II. For example, to be eligible for Tier II under 
NRCS's fiscal year 2005 sign-up notice, an applicant must address a 
third applicable resource concern--in addition to soil and water 
quality--by the end of the contract period. For some watersheds, NRCS 
identified wildlife habitat as this third resource concern. 

[56] At a minimum, all CSP contract payments include some amount for 
the stewardship and existing practice components. The enhancement 
payment and new practice component amounts may be zero in some cases. 

[57] EQIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas. 

[58] An exemption to this provision is provided in cases where 75 
percent of the adjusted gross income is derived from farming, ranching, 
or forestry operations. 

[59] GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process 
for Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, GAO-06-969 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006) provides and 
evaluation of this process. 

[60] WRP is also available in 6 trust territories. 

[61] WHIP was reauthorized in 2002 by the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002. 

[62] WHIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas. 

[63] Shorter-term agreements are available for installing practices 
needed in situations where wildlife habitat is threatened as a result 
of a disaster and emergency measures are necessary to address the 
potential for dramatic declines in one or more wildlife populations. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: